Posted on 01/26/2005 9:46:21 AM PST by 7thson
When I pulled into the parking lot this morning, I saw a car covered with sacrilegious bumper stickers. It seemed obvious to me that the owner was craving attention. I’m sure he was also seeking to elicit anger from people of faith. The anger helps the atheist to justify his atheism. And, all too often, the atheist gets exactly what he is looking for.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
ping for later
No, they would also need to show that I blaspheme rather than criticize.
Hate speech laws are unconstitutional.
You brought them up, not me. Public decency laws were upheld by the courts till maybe very recently, by judges who had a better understanding of the Constitution than the current crop of imbecils.
In other words, you are embarassed to say it was a post about me personally and was entirely off topic.
I'm satisfied to leave it to you and the Holy Spirit to mull over.
The spirit already told you, hence your reluctance to answer.
Have a nice day.
Thank you, you as well.
See you around.
Not likely. You wouldn't know me even if you laid eyes me.
May the love of Christ be with you always.
And also with you.
Non sequitur. Occam's Razor orders a set of possible hypotheses by probability of correctness. It does not make hypotheses. Esoterica: There are algorithmic methods for generating Occam-optimal hypotheses, but that is a completely different topic.
Secondly, if you are trying to prove the non-existance of God, why would you use Occam's Razor which gets its name from a 13th century Franciscan Monk?
1.) I'm not trying to prove the non-existence of God. I'm making pointed observations that need to be made for the sake of rigor.
2.) Even if I was, only the validity of the reasoning matters, not who a person was. This is mathematics, not religious doctrine, and nowhere in its description will you see "God", even from a Franciscan monk. Apparently you are upset because I didn't engage in some kind of ad hominem in my reasoning. It certainly would have made it easier for you if my reasoning contained such fallacies. A trepanned monkey could have asserted Occam's Razor and it would not make it any less valid.
3.) Occam's Razor has a long and distinguished history. The first assertion of it (that we know of) was by Epicureus, Occam famously restated it, Kolmogorov formalized it mathematically, and someone whose name I forget proved the universal optimality of it. I, for one, am not going to ignore a well-established and proven theorem of mathematics.
Mathematics does not take sides, and it either stands or falls by its own merits. You can't tweak it if you find the outcomes undesirable.
Perhaps "claiming morality" is too thin a line to stand on. I aspire to the ideals of honor and integrity, both to my self and others. I make no claim to have either, for those are just words if they cannot be backed by evidence. However, those are the two major ideals in my life, and while I fail at times to adequately exemplify those ideals, there are times when I feel I live up to them. You may ask me to define my perception of honor and integrity, and I'd be hard pressed to do so without writing a small book. But to summarize, I try to treat others as I would like to be treated. The Golden Rule. I don't want people killing or raping me, therefore I don't kill or rape people. It seems like it would not be something I would really appreciate. I like the things that I own, and wouldn't deprive someone else of their belongings, even if for a good purpose. (Like taking church-goers Sunday clothes and giving them to the homeless.) I define "bad" as something I would consider a misfortune if it happened to me, even though like everything else there are exceptions where I could see the "good" in something "bad."
People, it's not rocket science. Atheists may be godless, but we're not hollow shells. I am the product of all that has happened to me, all that I have learned, and that which my parents have taught me.
If there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no afterlife, no consequences past this world, define morality and the difference between right and wrong.
I'll read this later.
at home more time
We can't be expected to share your enthusiasm for Jesus Christ, if that's why you think we sound stupid when Christianity is discussed.
But really, you don't think atheists can talk about moral issues in an intellgent or interesting manner? How about Richard Posner? He's a judge and a scholar and he writes about those sorts of things (law, law & economics, morality, etc.).
Just because you don't like the conclusions some people reach doesn't mean they weren't reached after extensive intelligent consideration.
Judges are wholly incapable (and Constitutionally prohibited) of determining religious issues.
The mere fear of being charged with blasphemy would stifle speech. Advocacy groups for various interests would use your laws to pretty much shut down politically incorrect speech.
Ridiculous. I can prove you aren't dead. I can prove I'm not dead.
I can prove I don't have four kids. I can prove I don't have a beak. I can prove Katie Couric is not a Republican.
Proving negatives even has a word associated with it: Disprove.
Atheists are sure God doesn't exist. There isn't room for doubt, else they'd be fine with the appellation agnostic. They aren't fine with that.
OK, that means atheists are sure beyond doubt. As a Christian, I freely admit the role of faith in my positions on Christ. Atheists don't admit the same. They are sure. Good, let's see the evidence and then perhaps I can have my Sunday mornings back. I don't care if they find Christ, Apollo, or Shiva, but they can't tell me they are sure of ANYTHING's non-existance unless they supply proof. This includes the Easter Bunny, or anything else.
In the absence of evidence, only faith exists among adherents to anything. As such, atheism is more a belief system than Christianity is, when you consider that they admit no doubt as to the non-existance of God. There is no spectrum of intensity to their position - just one setting - God doesn't exist.
Everyone else adheres to some sort of spectrum of belief, from "There must be intelligent design to things" to "God made the creation in seven literal 24 hour days" for example.
What, specficially, are you disagreeing with? My assertion that they aren't illogical in saying that God and right and wrong can be independent of each other, or when I said that it's a circular argument that cannot be won, since neither side accepts the basis of each other's beliefs to begin with?
As much as we can find out where anything came from. Within the constraints provided by mathematics at least. For those things outside those constraints, there are few assertions we can make. The point is not that we can discern everything without limits, but that the limits are universal; there are no special exceptions that transcend the underlying math, no matter how much we wish this was not the case.
I agree that this society is sick and no rational lawmaking is possible in it. Yes, advocacy groups for the militant left play it like a fiddle. I am yet to see a Christian interest upheld in any measure by today's courts. If I saw anti-Christian speech being stifled on the grounds of blasphemy, -- or really on any grounds, -- I'd share your concerns.
But, it you are right, it doesn't matter in the end. If it does, please feel free to say why.
I think that human life should be considered sacred. That being said, I also think that someone that threatens to end others' lives places himself in that same dangerous position. Yes, I support the death penalty for murderers. Murder is a choice, killing in defense is a response to the threat of your own death. Capital punishment to me is killing in defense of society.
Must we continue? I have no other rational choice. Starve to death? No thank you. Work 7-7 in a mindnumbing job, wasting my time on this planet? Not worth it. Helping others appreciate the profound life they have? Seems noble enough for me. I care because I care, not because a religion has told me that it's the by-product of belief.
I don't see how the existence of a creator gives meaning to what would otherwise be meaningless. In other words, if what the creator created is meaningless when it stands alone, then what the creator has created is meaningless. If I create a gadget which serves no purpose and falls apart if you try to put it to any purpose, it is no more meaningful than if the useless gadget had evolved from "a trick of the cosmos".
The Constitution forbids judges from interfering and determining religious matters.
There is Canon law that is capable of addressing blasphemy, and there are experts from the realm of the church that can testify in front of a secular judge.
Irrelevant. The laws of a particular religion cannot be Consitutionally enforced by a judge.
I agree that this society is sick and no rational lawmaking is possible in it.
Nonsense. Our system works just fine.
I am yet to see a Christian interest upheld in any measure by today's courts.
What exactly is a "Christian interest" and when have the courts struck them down?
You have hit my faith on the head. It doesn't matter in the end. That being said, I'm not going to be around in the end to judge what matters and what doesn't. What matters is what takes place between now and the end. ;) That is the body of my belief. I don't feel that I need to believe that there is a purpose, a meaning, what have you. Simply being is enough.
I can turn it around. Unless you can disprove the existence of the Tooth Fairy, it must exist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.