Reason Prostituted

Taken from this forum . Everyone has some faith in an ultimate something that cannot be substantiated solely by physical evidence. Atheists have faith in naturalism alone - their faith is nakedly exposed in topics such as the origin of life or, as they term it, abiogeneis. Abiogenesis is the idea that life originated from non-living matter in the sense that it arose naturalistically. The naturalistic (and therefore “scientific”) concept is that life ("bio") must have originated ("genesis") without ("a-") any outside help. Life, ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE anywhere in the universe, ultimately either arose naturally or supernaturally. So, ultimately, there are really only two alternatives. With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of Go

These are old news, but still interesting: Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy (IsraelNN.com) Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews “more or less monopolize American foreign policy.” Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are “fantastically successful” in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy. A number of Jewish leaders responded immediately, with ADL head Abe Foxman calling Dawkin’s remarks “classic anti-Semitism.” Malcom Hoenlein, a senior official in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, was quoted by Yediot Acharonot as saying the statements represented “the poisoning of the elite.” Even top scientists can “demonstrate ignorance and fall victim to misinformation,” said Hoenlein,

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyound dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. Bertrand Russell. Currently I feel that belief in God is better for mental

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts The presupposition behind these phrase seems to be that any concept of God is equally arbitrary, and any believer of whatever religion base her beliefs on pure whim or blindly follows any religious tradition she received in her upbringing. If this believer rejects other religious traditions for being incompatible with her own, she rejects these traditions because she thinks they are human-based, or devil-based: they don't originate from her god. In order to become a full atheist she only has to realize that her beliefs are equally arbitrary to the ones she criticizes. But these presuppositions are wrong. Not every religion sees other religious traditions as purely arbitrary. See Catholicism for example: it currently teaches that there is value in other religious traditions.

Santa is an intentional fiction. God is seriously believed to exist. Santa's existence is irrelevant for the universe's existence, but if God exists she is the foundation of all existence. Santa is a contingent being, he could or not exist. If God exists, she is necessary, she could not not exist. Santa's existence is falsifiable. God's existence is not. God's existence is an issue of serious reflection for unbelievers. Santa's is not. Many famous people of high intellectual caliber believe in God. There's no serious intellectual known for her belief in Santa. There are different kind of arguments that seriously pretend to support the case for God's existence. No such arguments exist for Santa. God's invisible and inmaterial. Santa is not. Belief in God is a basic tenet of many religious organizations. There is no organization known to defend belief in Santa. There is no philosophical basis for belief in Santa, but there is for God. See also: The inv

The essence of theism consists in trusting that there is an ultimate cosmic purpose in which everyone of us takes part. In the end, everything will work for good, somehow. Theism is an attitude of wholesome confidence towards life.

This is good news. The book "The Irrational Atheist" is now available online for free. Check this link: The Irrational Atheist “In The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day plays the card that the atheists consider their trump—reason—against them in a devastating and highly entertaining manner. With clarity and wit, he presents a wealth of evidence to demolish the arguments put forward by the leading ‘brights’ of the day.” —Chad Elder, Fraters Libertas

One of the connotations of the analogy of God with Santa Claus and other fictional characters is that God is irrelevant, her existence easily dismissible, and were it not for a bunch of lunatics we call theists, this would be a non issue. In fact, it is a non issue, theists’s insistence notwithstanding. But the curious thing is that there are those who insist that belief in God is in the same category with belief in Santa, and at the same time can’t stop thinking, talking and writing about God related issues. That behavior seems contradictory to me. Even though atheists may deny it with words, with their behavior they are admitting that they care about God’s existence, and possibly even more than those theists that take God’s existence for granted. This atheist behavior cries for an explanation.

These days I've been wondering what to do with the proposition that God exists, or, conversely, with opposite one: that God does not exist. What I believe? I've been playing an agnostic position, but now I doubt an agnostic position is psychologically feasible. I now tend to think it's not. If I am honest with myself, I have to admit that the affirmation that God does not exist doesn't ring true to me. In other words: the existence of God is not so easily dismissible for me as the existence of Santa Claus. So the assertion that God exists seems more believable to me than its opposite. Am I a theist? I think so. Am I a Christian? No. But more than believing, I feel. I feel the wonder of being alive in this world and I connect this feeling with God. And no amount of naturalistic explanation has been able to eliminate this wonder. These days I've reading critiques of naturalistic ideology in official science. I now doubt neo-Darwinism and anti-miracle skepticism. I adm

There's no evidence for God's existence. This is a popular claim of atheists. But no matter how you try to argue for evidence for God or supernaturalism, they don't accept it and keep claiming there is no evidence. What to do? Put them to provide evidence for their atheistic and naturalistic worldview. See these articles: How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist. Presumption of Atheism and the ‘Insufficient Evidence’ Objection to Belief in God.

"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence". "But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist". "I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?” Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character. But what is the basis of this idea? It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake. Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a hu

There is no agreement about the definition of atheism, not even in those who call themselves atheists. Some authors say that atheism is denial of God. That is the most popular definition among non-atheists, and is often contrasted to agnosticism. Others say that atheism is lack of belief in God, and that this lack of belief doesn't necessarily imply denial of the existence of God. This is the definition that is most used by internet atheists, and is used to effectively avoid the burden of the proof. These atheists say they don't have to prove the non existence of God. Those who claim that God exists are the ones obliged to prove that God exists, no the other way around. They elevate this to a general epistemological principle. This definition of atheism as a lack of belief allows the atheist to appear neutral and ingenuous about the issue of God, without the need to call themselves "agnostics", label that is despised by atheists for being too weak. In order to disting

The traditional arguments for the existence of God, even when they don't achieve their purpose, at least help us to discern a concept of Her. Such is the case of the teleological argument, also known as argument from design, that, when put together with the cosmological argument, gives us an idea of what we should understand when we are talking about God. The teleological argument can be understood as an analogy between the things the human being create and the things that exist in nature. Intelligence is the ability that allows the capacity of creation for the human being. The teleological argument says that there should be something analogous to the human intelligence that has created the things that exists in nature. The cosmological argument is based in the idea that everything has a cause, reason of being or explanation, even when we don't know it. Based in this principle, we reached the conclusion that everything that exists must have an ultimate explanation, which is the

It is not necessary to think about the Supreme Being as a personal god. Pantheism claims the Universe is God, that God is all that exists. This does not mean the God of theism is equivalent to the Universe. That would be absurd because Theism clearly distinguish the Creator from Creation. Pantheistic conceptions are found everywhere in oriental religions. In occidental tradition, Baruch Spinoza was the philosopher who stood out in defense of Pantheism. Spinoza’s pantheism was a monism of one only substance and many attributes. He believed in some kind of pre-designer Soul who committed suicide in the act of creation of matter. Some people believe the Universe is some kind of living being. But the pantheism that interests me, and that can also be interesting to atheists is Naturalistic Pantheism, the one that some call Scientific Pantheism. (I considered this last term an oxymoron). Naturalistic Pantheism is based in the feeling of awe and amazement that some people feel when contempl

The concept of God profiled in the ontological argument of Saint Anselm is that of a distant and impassible God: incapable of experimenting surprise, incapable of feeling any kind of emotion she can’t risk anything. Pascal was right in his rejections of this cold philosophical god, choosing instead a more biblical faith. This philosophical theism is not compatible with practical theism that is lived in Christian religion. The simple act of prayer seeks to influence God, but trying to influence God is pointless when she is conceived as the Absolute. It’s no wonder many believers of orthodox piety are trying to make a reformulation of their faith in order to make it more open and existential than metaphysical. A relational approach to theology drives us to reject the concept of a distant and cold god, locked in his infinitude. Process Theology Whitehead and Harshorne were the ones to provide a philosophical frame for a more biblical and practical theism. (Whitehead was co-author with B