I'm sure some would. Proving it is a whole different story.As a worldview, some would say that atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems.
And attempt you may.Others, obviously embrace it. I would like to attempt to point out the inability for the atheistic worldview to account for rationality.
I can summarize by saying that atheism cannot account for rationality. You see, logic is based upon universal truth statements which we call the laws of logic. Such laws are, for example, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. These universal truth statements are what rational arguments are based upon. If these additional laws changed depending upon the situation, location, time, or an individual’s personal preferences, then there is no basis for rationality and truth could not be known. Truth would then depend upon situations and personal opinions. If that were the case, then I could say that blue sleeps faster than Wednesday and whatever I say is always true because I claim it.
But, this is not rational and you and I both know that it isn't.
In the Christian worldview, the universal truth statements are derived from God. These universal truth statements, these laws of identity, are conceptual by nature. Why? Because they are statements. Statements require minds and since logic is the process of the mind, the logical foundations upon which rationality depends, is of the mind and is conceptual by nature.
If the atheist were to say that logical processes are not of the mind or that the truth statements which are the foundations of logic are not of the mind, then he is being irrational. After all, truth is a statement which agrees with reality. And because truth is constructed in statements, a mind is required for such statements to be made.
If a tree falls in a forest...Let me clarify. If a rock is all that exists in the universe, it is true that a rock is the only thing that exists. But saying that it is the only thing that exists is a statement which requires a mind. If there are no minds, and the rock is all that exists, no statements can be made about the rock. It would not be known that it was the only thing existing. But truth statements are known. Therefore, all such truth statements require minds and the universal, logical absolutes, truth statements that form the basis of rational thought, require a mind to be made and known.
Atheism has no way of accounting for these universal truth statements. Atheists can try and state that the laws of logic are based upon human minds, but this cannot be because human minds are different and contradict each other as well as themselves. Since logical absolutes are universally true, they cannot be the product of human minds because human minds are limited, are not universally true, and often contradict each other.
If the atheist wants to say that the logical absolutes are merely descriptions of behavior of the universe, then how would an atheist, by observation determine the third law of logic, the law of excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false? He couldn’t.
Which is also true. Ever been drunk?If the atheist wants to say that logical absolutes are the result of chemical processes in the brain, that can't work because it would mean that logic could be altered by brain chemistry.
Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn't work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not.
If the atheist says that logic is a property of the universe like motion and gravity, the problem here is that you cannot measure the laws of logic where such things like weight, mass, heat, and cold can be measured.
So, atheists repeatedly try to respond to the issue of trying to account for rationality founded in universal truth statements also known as logical absolutes. But in all their trying and all their attempted logical outcry, they fail. Why? Because atheism doesn’t have the substance to account for rationality. It is deficient as a worldview from this perspective.
The Christian universal mind remains an unproven notion, however. All evidence points to its non-existence.But, Christianity states that the universal truth statements reflect the universal mind. We, as God's creation, are able to recognize them because we are made in God’s image. Where Christianity provides an answer to this important issue, atheism clearly fails to deliver.
I surely know the mutated hot air of satan when I hear it.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never fear the sword of God if you're on His side.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------While I agree that global warming is a scam, it is not the greatest scam. I suggest that the greatest scam is the theory of evolution.
For example, whereas there is no doubt that there is variation within the lower levels (within the same variety, species, genus and even family), never has anyone demonstrated the change of one creature from one higher level to another (across different phyla, classes, or orders) like from a fish to an amphibian. (That happens only in the biology textbooks.)
If evolution occurred, there should be abundant examples of transitional fossils. The lack of these fossils was a great embarrassment to Darwin but he had faith that they would be found. One hundred fifty years later Darwinists still have faith that the necessary transitional fossils will be found.
What we do see is not evolution, but devolution. Mutations are supposed to be an engine of evolution. But, there are many more neutral or bad mutations than there are helpful ones.
A search of 189,807,786 medical and biological research abstracts found 453,732 articles about mutations, only 186 of which were beneficial (0.04%).
The devolution we see indicates the original genetic material was better than what we see today. The Bible says that when God finished creating all life he pronounced it "very good". The original genetic material would have had no defects. What we see today has devolved from it as a result of sin entering the world.
Yes, the biggest scam in history is evolution. We need to recognize it for what it is and return to the clear teaching of the Bible on origins. The Bible's record, after all, much better explains the devolution we see all around us.
Riteous people do not feel humility.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Who knows how to file a DMCA against "fundies say the darnedest things"?
OK, so I've been researching what I can do to take Fundies (which is an offensive term) Say the Darnedest Things down, and I've come across something called a DMCA that I think will get the company that runs the server of the website to take them down at least for a little bit while I peruse other legal options. I'm not really sure how to file one though, anyone know how?
[...]
Ya that's pretty much what he [the lawyer] told me. I've decided not to file a DMCA because of that and the whole venomfangx thing. It's a shame because you guys really shouldn't be legally able to blaspheme the Lord.
For the first time in this blog's history, I have a guest article. Reference can be found at the bottom of the post. Enjoy.
Benefits of Being an Atheist
More often than not as an atheist, people want to pry into your reasoning and motivation for making such a choice. Reason and logic are the glue that holds atheists together, so a challenging discussion is always welcome. However, when the argument becomes heated, religious adherents often fall back on faith and the notion that their “plan” will one day become evident. This idea may offer comfort, but there are benefits of having an atheist worldview as well.
Adaptability
While religious people hold hard and fast to outmoded beliefs, atheists learn to adapt to change and don’t have to resist the inevitable. Evolution, be it societal or otherwise, will continue to push forward whether you like it or not. Social Darwinism is alive and well, and those who aren’t ready to change will soon find themselves left in the dust.
Healthy Realism
Realism is another notch in the atheist’s belt. Being able to look at things through a paradigm developed through authentic experience and education enables the atheist to accept things that are true and real without fear of repercussions in the religious context. When new discoveries or knowledge become available, atheists can look at the facts and make judgements based on reason and logic.
Skepticism
Questioning social and religious mores is another thing that atheists do quite often. Rather than blindly accepting what is given to them, atheist perform their due diligence and judge things based on their merit, not on the source of information. If the same source seems to be giving consistently inaccurate information, however, then the credibility of that source can be judged accordingly.
Education
Many atheists seem to know more about religion than religious adherents. That said, atheists can read religious texts dispassionately and take in the information to develop logical and reasonable arguments to the contrary. Spending time learning about what the other side thinks, feels, and believes can empower you to make informed arguments if need be without attachment.
Freedom
Ultimately, atheists experience true freedom. Being able to evaluate information and make choices without doing them because of an arbitrary belief system is one of the most empowering things that you can do. Additionally, being able to think and act without fear of retribution by an omnipotent being enables you to feel true freedom.
This post was contributed by Courtney Phillips, who writes about the cheapest MBA. She welcomes your feedback at CourtneyPhillips80 at gmail.com
Why is Darwin nearly extinct in textbooks?
Charles Darwin is missing from many textbooks.
As Charles Darwin's 200th birthday approaches, new research from the University of Salford has identified a decline in references to the pioneering scientist in A level textbooks - despite the continuing presence of creationist theory.
Dr Paul Rees, a lecturer in biology and former A level teacher, examined textbooks and syllabuses used in the UK since the sixties, and found that textbooks currently in use sometimes completely fail to mention Darwin, and often only deal very sketchily with the theory of evolution.
On the other hand, creationism gets several references in current textbooks, including Hall et al 2006 which says the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is a minority view among the people of the world.
Dr Rees, who teaches in the School of Environment & Life Sciences said: "While the historical context of important theories, and the names of their proponents, are commonplace in textbooks written for some other subjects, such as psychology, in biology textbooks Darwin is sometimes not deemed important enough to mention.
"If people are giving space to nonsense like creationism, then they should certainly be mentioning the most important figure in our understanding of the natural world.
"Role models and icons are important to help young people become inspired by science. It's a shame that biology examiners and therefore textbooks don't always recognise this."
Dr Rees' research was first published in the journal School Science Review.
There is plenty of evidence that thinking about disembodied minds comes naturally. People readily form relationships with non-existing others: roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners.By any chance, am I the only one the two statements above give the creeps to? I, for one, have never had an imaginary friend - except for during the few years I was raised as a church goer and assumed god was real because everyone else around me did. And by all means I certainly don't have any sort of relationship with dead relatives of mine, fictional characters or fantasy partners (the odd fantasy about this or that Hollywood start doesn't count...). What the article describes - except for the part concerning kids' imaginary friends, a fairly common phenomenon and relatively harmless in most cases - are clear signs of schizophrenia.
When Deborah Kelemen [...] asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist "to make nice music," while rivers exist so boats have something to float on.However, reality is a tad different. Quoting from one of Kelemen's publications:
Analyses of the individual tasks to this point can be summarized as follows: Across age groups, children’s clearest intuitions about origins occurred with artifacts and natural events, with both purpose and design seen as highly relevant to explaining artifacts (which children view as humanmade) but somewhat irrelevant to explaining natural events (which children view as having physical–causal antecedents).
Children’s explanations for animals and nonliving natural objects fall somewhere between these poles but although Year 2 and Year 5 children had an equivalently strong tendency to generate artifact-like teleofunctional ideas when answering open-ended origins questions about animals and natural objects, it was younger children who showed more pronounced teleofunctional and intelligent design intuitions in closed-ended tasks. For example, Year 2 children were more likely to actively endorse teleofunctional over physical causal accounts when explaining natural objects and were more likely to endorse intelligent design rather than nondesign when explaining animals.
In the case of Year 5 children, the shift from being likely to generate teleofunctional explanations of animals and natural objects in an open-ended task, to then becoming ambivalent or eschewing them in the closed-ended origins-teleology task, potentially reflects children’s increasing scientific knowledge base—physical–causal response options probably triggered children’s latent knowledge of popular scientific explanations that they have not yet mastered enough to generate for themselves. There is some evidence, then, that older children’s reasoning undergoes some form of transition around 9 to 10 years of age as they increasingly retain and elaborate physical–causal explanations that are alternatives to teleofunctional and design explanations of the biological and nonbiological natural world.
Direttamente dal sito dell'UAAR.
Genova, gli ateobus UAAR ‘tornano’ in circolazione
Avrebbero dovuto sfilare per la città dicendo che Dio non esiste, ma sono stati bloccati dalla concessionaria degli spazi pubblicitari che li trovava lesivi delle convinzioni religiose. Oggi gli ateobus hanno ottenuto il semaforo verde per un nuovo slogan e si preparano a dare ai genovesi due notizie allegre: “La buona notizia è che in Italia ci sono milioni di atei. Quella ottima è che credono nella libertà di espressione”.
«Dopo tutto l’inatteso bailamme per i vecchi ateobus, - spiega Raffaele Cà rcano, segretario generale dell’Uaar - volevamo lanciare un altro messaggio: volevamo dire che, tra gli italiani, uno su sette è ateo o agnostico, anche se politici, media e aziende municipalizzate non ne tengono conto. La nostra è una campagna per la loro visibilità , perché più visibilità significa meno discriminazione e più rispetto». La IGP Decaux, la concessionaria degli spazi pubblicitari della società di trasporti genovese, ha dato il via libera al nuovo slogan, al posto del prece-dente: “La cattiva notizia è che Dio non esiste. Quella buona è che non ne hai bisogno”.
Intanto la Uaar non ha desistito con il vecchio slogan, anzi. Il gruppo Facebook che sostiene gli ateobus ha già 4000 sostenitori e sono stati raccolti 23 000 euro di donazioni per metterli in circolazione in altre città . «Non desistiamo perché è in gioco la libertà di espressione: – insiste Carcano – dobbiamo ribadire che, per la nostra Costituzione, credenti e non credenti hanno gli stessi diritti, compreso quello di dire “Dio c’è” o “Dio non c’è”».Comunicato stampa Uaar
L’Uaar ha diffuso questo comunicato perché la notizia, a sua insaputa, era già trapelata sulla stampa. Ne ha infatti dato notizia questa mattina Repubblica, nella cronaca di Genova, e la notizia è stata prontamente ripresa dal Secolo XIX e dall’ANSA.
Nota tecnica: l’UAAR ha deciso di parlare di “un italiano su sette” in base ai dati forniti dall’ultimo rapporto sulla libertà religiosa redatto dal Dipartimento di Stato Americano, non certo sospettabile di simpatie nei confronti dell’ateismo e dell’agnosticismo. Vi si può infatti leggere che “the most recent data indicate that approximately 14 percent of the population identifies itself as either atheist or agnostic“.
Buongiornocon riferimento alla Sua richiesta d'informazioni sulla campagna UAAR pervenutami via mail, precisiamo quanto segue.Abbiamo ritenuto di non poter esporre il messaggio cosi come si presentava sul bozzetto inviatoci dall'agenzia, dato il combinato disposto dell'articolo 10 e 46 del Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria ( il codice è scaricabile all'indirizzo: www.iap.it/it/codice.htm)Ricordiamo che il Codice di Autodiscilplina Pubblicitaria è giunto alla 44° edizione ( la prima risale al 1966 ) ed è adottato da tutte le concessionarie e da tutti i mezzi pubblicitari italiani.Cordiali salutiBenedetta ArlatiDirezione Marketing - Responsabile Comunicazione e Immaginetel. +39 02 62498294fax. +39 02 6599037IGPDecaux S.p.A.Piazza Cavour, 1 - 20121 Milano
La concessionaria di pubblicità IGPDecaux ha comunicato le motivazioni alla base della decisione di non accettare la pubblicità degli autobus UAAR “in base al combinato disposto dell’articolo 10 e 46 del Codice di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria“.
Tale Codice recita:
Art. 10 – Convinzioni morali, civili, religiose e dignità della persona
La comunicazione commerciale non deve offendere le convinzioni morali, civili e religiose dei cittadini. Essa deve rispettare la dignità della persona umana in tutte le sue forme ed espressioni.
Art. 46 – Appelli al pubblico
È soggetto alle norme del presente Codice qualunque messaggio volto a sensibilizzare il pubblico su temi di interesse sociale, anche specifici, o che sollecita, direttamente o indirettamente, il volontario apporto di contribuzioni di qualsiasi natura, finalizzate al raggiungimento di obiettivi di carattere sociale.
Tali messaggi devono riportare l’identità dell’autore e del beneficiario della richiesta, nonché l’obiettivo sociale che si intende raggiungere.
I promotori di detti messaggi possono esprimere liberamente le proprie opinioni sul tema trattato, ma deve risultare chiaramente che trattasi di opinioni dei medesimi promotori e non di fatti accertati.
Per contro i messaggi non devono:
sfruttare indebitamente la miseria umana nuocendo alla dignità della persona, né ricorrere a richiami scioccanti tali da ingenerare ingiustificatamente allarmismi, sentimenti di paura o di grave turbamento;
colpevolizzare o addossare responsabilità a coloro che non intendano aderire all’appello;
presentare in modo esagerato il grado o la natura del problema sociale per il quale l’appello viene rivolto;
sovrastimare lo specifico o potenziale valore del contributo all’iniziativa;
sollecitare i minori ad offerte di denaro.
Le presenti disposizioni si applicano anche alla comunicazione commerciale che contenga riferimenti a cause sociali.
«La cattiva notizia è che Dio non esiste. Quella buona, è che non ne hai bisogno»faceva menzione della Chiesa Cattolica? Il fatto che l'Italia sia un paese a maggioranza cattolica fa necessariamente di ogni attacco logico, filosofico, scientifico e puramente razionale contro la semplice nozione di un essere supremo un attacco contro la Chiesa Cattolica? O si tratta più semplicemente di quello, di una critica alla pura idea di dio e ai devastanti effetti che essa ha avuto nella storia umana e nel nostro presente, non solo a livello globale ma anche a livello strettamente individuale? Consiglierei al pontefice e al suo club un po' di sana modestia - lo ammetto, piuttosto difficile aspettarsene da coloro che hanno la pretesa di essere rappresentanti in terra di una divinità la cui esistenza non è mai stata provata nonostante millenni di tentativi.
