Friday, February 22, 2013

If rationalists were wrong?

Why, how could we be wrong when God has no referents as Creator and no coherent, non-contradictory attributes? Why should we fear that barbarism of Hell, however defined. of  mean-minded, misological misanthropes?
 No evidence comes forth for Hell.
 No need comes forth for the Atonement.
 No way!
 Blaise Pascal urges others to self-brainwash by proffering methods of doing so. He left reason when he wasn't being a mathematician!
  Instead, practice the absence of God as Robert Price does in " The Reason- Driven Life." Peter Kreeft instead pleas for that self-brainwashing.
        Choose reason. Reason saves, not that forever dead ,narcissistic misanthropic cult leader!

What if Atheists are Wrong? Aren't You Afraid of Hell? Can You Take the Chance?

What if Atheists are Wrong? Aren't You Afraid of Hell? Can You Take the Chance?

Sunday, February 10, 2013

That debate!

 Armstrong - Sinnott won that debate as he has reality on his side, whilst Craig misinterprets the evidence.

    For the problem of evil , S.-A. could in debates use Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven, which develops the case that were theists and - consistent, then on the Earth as in Heaven, people could have free will and a guarantee not to do wrong, no consistency of hobgoblins of little minds.

  He rightly uses the argument from timelessness, as a timeless God could never have anything to do with creating anything in time, and thus, Craig's Kalam fails in that it relies on Him being timeless but who creates in time, and that reflects absurdity.

   Craig relies on uncorroborated writers of uncorroborated tall tales for the Resurrection! Credulity cannot instantiate God! We anti-theists have no burden of proof to overcome such tales with counter ones.

     How could a rational person have a relationship with a zero-being? Customer Reviews: God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint) Customer Reviews: God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint)

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Reason saves!

This blog is for encouraging people to use reason in religion.It finds Blaise Pascal's Wager and William James' Will to Believe self-brainwashing. Indeed, I run James out of the pragmatist movement!
 Reason removes mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance!
 The previous essay is so absurd? Why would we rationalists find it so?

Google Leser (1000+)

Google Leser (1000+)

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

      We rationalists use methodological naturalism and most  of us are ontological naturalists.. We reject the  supernatural and the paranormal as they contradict our conservation of knowledge. We urge people to use reason and facts,  not false intuitions, revelations and other non-sensorial sources.
       Our five senses and instruments deliver facts on which we build knowledge.
       Knowledge, not faith, leads to that more abundant life.
       When haughty John Haught claims that faith envelopes the entire being and Alister Earl McGrath claims that first believers find the  evidence and then apply faith to it as certitude, both  positions fail in that they are not tentative as science perforce  is. So, their definitions amount in the end to blind faith to  chain  believers to certitude instead of prodding them to find out truth. Oh, yes, advanced theology has changed from fundamentalism but can go no further or else, believers become unbelievers as no evidence exists for belief.
                         Theologians go from one quicksand to another!
           We  rationalists embrace empiricism unlike the Continental Rationalists of old. We  Empiricism belies intuitions, revelations and such.
           We are skeptics. We are humanists.           
           Rationalism leads to that more abundant life! Reason save, not some forever dead cult leader!  
             What is your take?

Skeptic Griggsy: Ontological naturalism

Skeptic Griggsy: Ontological naturalism