Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Rationalism's take on truth in religion
We rationalists find no truth in religion that is not found elsewhere without the superstition. Religion, that superstition, derives from men's own imaginations. Revelations are just mens' own minds at works as is all religious experience.
Why would a rational person desire to accept as true such man-made fables and take solace from them ? I prefer Esops' Fables which give lessons without accepting woo.
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." In quiring Lynn
Why would a rational person desire to accept as true such man-made fables and take solace from them ? I prefer Esops' Fables which give lessons without accepting woo.
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." In quiring Lynn
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Embracing woo.
To embrace the mystery of Deity is to embrace woo. No mystery for Him exists as He cannot possibly exist.^ As mystery He'd be superflous as the Primary Cause and Sufficient Reason.The mystery- God did it adds no information and thus no knowledge.
.People like mystery but here ,because it assuages them and makes them think that they fathom that reality is intelligible due to that mystery, but which actually betrays reality.
No mystery serves to explain why there something exists instead of nothing when how could thee exist nothing anyway. To pose that query means to provide another argument from personal incredulity and its answer the argument from ignorance, both which underlie most theistic arguments.
No mystery exists as to why the Cosmos exists. That Mystery adds obscurantism,not intelligibility.
Lamberth's the argument from inherency notes that chaos,order, regularity, the descriptions- laws- of Nature inhere in Existence, so obscurantism adds nothing to that. Theism relies on obscurantism. Theistic evolution is an oxy-moronic obscurantism.
^http://ignosticmorgansblog. wordpress.com Why Deity is no more real than a square circle!
Monday, November 26, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
WLC'c misanthropy!
William Lane Craig reverberates in sophistry. In the previous article he fails to defend rationally his twaddle,because we are not sinners who inherit original sin, not even metaphorically! The Eden myth portrays Yahweh who entraps the pair. They had no knowledge of right and wrong until they had eaten of the forbidden fruit, which knowledge they should already have had! Then that pervert expelled them and put their supposed guilt onto all their posterity, which is malevolent.
Atheist Michael Ruse with his sophistry cannot salvage original sin as we do not inherit that. Nothing in the myth for which he can find a natural metaphor exists.
To expiate would require the person to do so, not an innocent person [ Ah, then Yeshua wouldn't be innocent, because as Yahweh he'd be evil himself as causing the Deluge,etc.!
This form of blood sacrifice is as evil as that of the Aztecs and others. To send people to Hell for any reason is both irrational and - immoral. It harms the Christian argument to say that they send themselves there as noted.
Ti's both irrational and immoral to claim possession of humans! We as independent beings owe no allegiance to or worship of any other being per Lamberth's argument from autonomy.
Most people do mainly good and deserve no dire punishment. Others merit grave punishment. We humans try to apply the appropriate punishment whilst the miserable, mistaken misanthropes who just made up the Bible had no authority to lay down their egregious morality for us!They, not their invented Yahweh just made up their egregious simple subjective morality f rom mainly their own tastes and whims instead of what consequences portray as good or bad. They deserve our objurgation!
They thus put forth no objective morality that WLC prattles that Yahweh made!
WLC claims that the commands for genocide were just as Yahweh found those peoples so immoral. He prattles that their children would go immediately to Heaven. That prattling illuminates the mind of an irrational and -immoral person! We rationalist objurgate him as the fool he is.
What effrontery and blasphemy to humanity!
He is defending might is right, and irrationality and immorality rule!
We rationalists find such people at odds with morality and deserve condemnation for that.
He leads no one morally but instead pleads for that very irrationality and immorality!
Atheist Michael Ruse with his sophistry cannot salvage original sin as we do not inherit that. Nothing in the myth for which he can find a natural metaphor exists.
To expiate would require the person to do so, not an innocent person [ Ah, then Yeshua wouldn't be innocent, because as Yahweh he'd be evil himself as causing the Deluge,etc.!
This form of blood sacrifice is as evil as that of the Aztecs and others. To send people to Hell for any reason is both irrational and - immoral. It harms the Christian argument to say that they send themselves there as noted.
Ti's both irrational and immoral to claim possession of humans! We as independent beings owe no allegiance to or worship of any other being per Lamberth's argument from autonomy.
Most people do mainly good and deserve no dire punishment. Others merit grave punishment. We humans try to apply the appropriate punishment whilst the miserable, mistaken misanthropes who just made up the Bible had no authority to lay down their egregious morality for us!They, not their invented Yahweh just made up their egregious simple subjective morality f rom mainly their own tastes and whims instead of what consequences portray as good or bad. They deserve our objurgation!
They thus put forth no objective morality that WLC prattles that Yahweh made!
WLC claims that the commands for genocide were just as Yahweh found those peoples so immoral. He prattles that their children would go immediately to Heaven. That prattling illuminates the mind of an irrational and -immoral person! We rationalist objurgate him as the fool he is.
What effrontery and blasphemy to humanity!
He is defending might is right, and irrationality and immorality rule!
We rationalists find such people at odds with morality and deserve condemnation for that.
He leads no one morally but instead pleads for that very irrationality and immorality!
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Reason against any scriptures
We rationalists find the putative biblical metaphors blaspheme reason and -humanity! Michael Ruse harms the cause of rationalism with his saccharine accommodationist to Christ-insanity with claiming that, why, yes , Christians can use science to affirm their beliefs. Yet, as the previous article observes, the metaphors do not reflect reality. Why then would any rational person even try to find those life-enhancing metaphors for the hope that ahughty John Haught claims reverberates in the Bible?
No good metaphor can explain the Deluge: the real metaphor stands for might is right!
We can find excellent metaphors elsewhere. Why, Aesop's Fables enlighten us.
Why would any rational person find Yahweh's irrational outbursts of any sue for a food metaphors? That egregious anthology reflects the misanthropes who wrote it. As the author notes, in effect, Why would any rational person care fro their barbarism?
We need no God to underwrite morality and to punish erratically.
Neither Yahweh nor Allah or Ormazd exist .
We rationalist s have the duty then to mock all that effect of superstition!
No errantist can defend that anthology as having any divine verbiage anyway. Why then assume that other scriptures aren't just as authoritative? But,no, inclusivists who allege such, gloss over the differences with their reverence of the Holy. No rational person should think that any God had anything to do with any scriptures.
It behooves errantists-non-literalists- then to face the facts: no divine inspiration and hope and a utter s and an utter disregard of truth inheres in that work. They then are so oburate that they blaspheme themselves!
And why would any rational person expect other scriptures to have any relevance?
No good metaphor can explain the Deluge: the real metaphor stands for might is right!
We can find excellent metaphors elsewhere. Why, Aesop's Fables enlighten us.
Why would any rational person find Yahweh's irrational outbursts of any sue for a food metaphors? That egregious anthology reflects the misanthropes who wrote it. As the author notes, in effect, Why would any rational person care fro their barbarism?
We need no God to underwrite morality and to punish erratically.
Neither Yahweh nor Allah or Ormazd exist .
We rationalist s have the duty then to mock all that effect of superstition!
No errantist can defend that anthology as having any divine verbiage anyway. Why then assume that other scriptures aren't just as authoritative? But,no, inclusivists who allege such, gloss over the differences with their reverence of the Holy. No rational person should think that any God had anything to do with any scriptures.
It behooves errantists-non-literalists- then to face the facts: no divine inspiration and hope and a utter s and an utter disregard of truth inheres in that work. They then are so oburate that they blaspheme themselves!
And why would any rational person expect other scriptures to have any relevance?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)