Ran across two gems on Facebook.
"Atheism teaches us that we can have morals but not a God."
No, it doesn't. "Atheism" is not a philosophy any more than "monotheism" is a religion or "sound" is a type of music. You can have a sound that is called "music," or a religion that is "monotheistic," or a philosophy that is "atheistic," but there is no "philosophy of atheism."
"Atheism fails to deliver valid or consistent
solutions to life's toughest issues concerning truth, morality, rational
thinking, logic and common sense."
There are an estimated 41,000 different versions of "truth" just within Christianity. Just within Protestant Christianity, (less than half of the world's Christian population) there are anywhere from 20 to 30 thousand different (often competing) versions of "truth." And Christianity is the tip of the iceberg as 2/3rds of the world's population isn't even Christian.
And within each version of "truth," there are completing versions of "morality" as well.
So what is a "rational thinking" person supposed to do with this information? What sort of "logic" and "common sense" can we use to draw a conclusion from all this?
Possibility 1: Everybody's right. This is impossible as it violates the fundamental assumption that logic works from (if A = A, then A can never = B. In other words, 2+2 cannot equal 3 and 4 simultaneously. It must equal one or the other. There cannot be "two right answers" to such a question.) These competing versions of truth and morality are often at odds. So it is impossible for them all to be "right.".
Possibility 2: The "right" answer is hiding among the many "imposters." If this were true, then religions would get less divergent over time as imposters would be exposed as such and would be discarded. That also means that there would have to exist a way to independently verify "true" religion from false. Since religion and it's claims deal with some sort of "Super-reality" outside of the one we currently inhabit, we would also need some way to independently verify the existence of this "Super-reality" in addition to a way to independently verify any claims made involving entities or consciousnesses from this "Super-reality." If such a thing exists, it is the best-kept secret in the world.
Possibility 3: All religions are based on equally unverifiable and unreliable claims and accepting one over all others doesn't make any sense.If this were true, then the thing to do would be to not "hitch your wagon" to any one particular system and remain "unaffiliated" and "unconvinced" as far as such things are concerned.
Sounds right to me.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Saturday, November 16, 2013
R. U. a Misogynist?
Meet Justin Lookadoo.
He has absolutely no professional credentials whatsoever when it comes to education, child or adolescent development, child or adolescent psychology, human relationships, human sexuality or counseling, but he was a juvenile probation officer for six years and he allegedly has a "biology degree" from Tarleton State University.
All that makes him the "perfect" guy to write a book telling teens whether or not they are "Dateable."
It also makes him a great person to invite to a public school where he is given a captive audience to preach his brand of hipster christianity.
So what makes someone dateable, you ask?
If you are a boy, some of the advice is pretty generic and can be found in any "Pick-up Artist" seminar, like being a gentleman, being honest, being confident, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da.
But it also means:
-Knowing that you "are stronger, more dangerous, and more adventurous" than the opposite sex.
I wonder if that means from time to time that you have to "put 'em in their place?"
So what if you are a girl?
Well:
-"Dateable girls know how to shut up."
-"God made guys as leaders. Dateable girls get that and let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. They relax and let guys be guys. Which means they don’t ask him out!!!"
-"A Dateable girl isn’t Miss Independent."
-"You are soft, you are gentle, you are a woman. Don’t try to be a guy."
-"The sexiest thing on a girl is happiness."
(Don't believe me, go look this shit up http://www.rudateable.com/cool_rules.php)
So according to Pinhead from "Hellraiser"'s bastard son up there, girls need to shut up, be happy, don't try to out-do the boys, and above all, be dependent and let the boy be the boss.
Quick Quiz:
Which advice came from Lookadoo, and which came from "Ridiculously Bad Advice From the 1950s."?
"To make him feel important, you have to forget your own desires for importance. Compliment him. The worst mistake a girl can make is to make a man feel intellectually inferior or inadequate as a male. We men need a lot of reassurance. So lay it on thick but subtly. Stroke his ego. Let him think he's king much of the time. He will love you for it, and, you know, it will make you feel extremely feminine."
"You’re a girl. Be proud of all that means. Guys like you because you are different from them. So let your girly-ness soar"
"Complaining, whining, comparing, sneering, harping – the nagger may specialize in one or be a general practitioner of all these forms of mental cruelty."
"[good girls] aren’t downers, they love life."
"[good girls] don’t monopolize the conversation. They don’t tell everyone everything about themselves. They save some for later. They listen more than they gab."
"Let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. [R]elax and let guys be guys. Which means ... don’t ask him out!!!"
"Let him lead."
"If he's made plans for the evening, don't try to change them."
"A young woman should begin in her teens learning the things that keep a home running smoothly. She can watch how her mother cooks and bakes. There are also many opportunities for a daughter to observe how Mother handles Dad when he’s had a tough day at work."
If you can't tell the difference, neither could I. And THAT is the problem with Justin Lookadoo.
All that makes him the "perfect" guy to write a book telling teens whether or not they are "Dateable."
It also makes him a great person to invite to a public school where he is given a captive audience to preach his brand of hipster christianity.
So what makes someone dateable, you ask?
If you are a boy, some of the advice is pretty generic and can be found in any "Pick-up Artist" seminar, like being a gentleman, being honest, being confident, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da.
But it also means:
-Knowing that you "are stronger, more dangerous, and more adventurous" than the opposite sex.
I wonder if that means from time to time that you have to "put 'em in their place?"
So what if you are a girl?
Well:
-"Dateable girls know how to shut up."
-"God made guys as leaders. Dateable girls get that and let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. They relax and let guys be guys. Which means they don’t ask him out!!!"
-"A Dateable girl isn’t Miss Independent."
-"You are soft, you are gentle, you are a woman. Don’t try to be a guy."
-"The sexiest thing on a girl is happiness."
(Don't believe me, go look this shit up http://www.rudateable.com/cool_rules.php)
So according to Pinhead from "Hellraiser"'s bastard son up there, girls need to shut up, be happy, don't try to out-do the boys, and above all, be dependent and let the boy be the boss.
Quick Quiz:
Which advice came from Lookadoo, and which came from "Ridiculously Bad Advice From the 1950s."?
"To make him feel important, you have to forget your own desires for importance. Compliment him. The worst mistake a girl can make is to make a man feel intellectually inferior or inadequate as a male. We men need a lot of reassurance. So lay it on thick but subtly. Stroke his ego. Let him think he's king much of the time. He will love you for it, and, you know, it will make you feel extremely feminine."
"You’re a girl. Be proud of all that means. Guys like you because you are different from them. So let your girly-ness soar"
"Complaining, whining, comparing, sneering, harping – the nagger may specialize in one or be a general practitioner of all these forms of mental cruelty."
"[good girls] aren’t downers, they love life."
"[good girls] don’t monopolize the conversation. They don’t tell everyone everything about themselves. They save some for later. They listen more than they gab."
"Let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. [R]elax and let guys be guys. Which means ... don’t ask him out!!!"
"Let him lead."
"If he's made plans for the evening, don't try to change them."
"A young woman should begin in her teens learning the things that keep a home running smoothly. She can watch how her mother cooks and bakes. There are also many opportunities for a daughter to observe how Mother handles Dad when he’s had a tough day at work."
If you can't tell the difference, neither could I. And THAT is the problem with Justin Lookadoo.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Presuppose This.
Theist: I believe in god X.
Atheist: On what do you base that belief?
Theist: I can't tell you.
Atheist: Why not?
Theist: Your presupposition is that there is no god X; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show his existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no god.
Atheist: Um, no. My "presupposition" is that you cannot make a claim that you cannot provide evidenciary support for.
Theist: If I were to have a video tape of god X coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria. If I had prophecies from a really old book fulfilled in a book not as old, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.
Atheist: Do you have a video tape of god X coming down from heaven?
Theist: Well...umm..no.
Atheist: And these thousand eye-witnesses, got any names?
Theist: Well...umm...no. But they were there and saw it, because this really old book that was written back then says so.
Atheist: Great! That must mean that there exists some sort of corroborating evidence to confirm it. Maybe something not written by the authors of that book?
Theist: Well.....not..exactly.
Atheist: Oh. Well....OK...Well these prophecies...are they specific and precise to the date and time and exact names of the people involved? Are they all internally consistent and free of contradictions?
Theist: Well....no.
Athiest: So a lot of them are vague and could be interpreted a number of ways.
Theist: Bingo!
Atheist: And did the authors of this not as old book...did they have access to these prophecies? Because if they did, there is a chance they could have written the narrative to suit the prophecies which would call into question how much of these prophecies were accurate predictions.
Theist: Ummm.....well, they sort of did.
Atheist: Well, do we know who the authors of these texts were?
Theist: Not exactly.
Atheist: Yikes! That's problematic. It's not looking good for your claim.
Theist: See? I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.
Atheist: How do you figure *my* presupposition is the problem?
Theist: Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine god X's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of his existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Atheist: Do you have incontrovertible proof?
Theist: No.
Atheist: What do you have?
Theist: What kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
Atheist: Show me a god. Any one will do. Or just give me one logically consistent reason to believe that one exists or can exist. Then give me one shred of evidence that can establish that not only does a god exist, but this god is your particular god X. How do claims about god X fundamentally differ from the thousands of other claims about the thousands of other gods that might also exist when all these claims are based on the untestable claims of people who have claimed some sort of interaction with a divine agent that could may as well be a figment of that person's imagination?
Theist: Ummmm......I don't exactly have any of that stuff.
Atheist: Well....what do you have?
Theist: A list of "escape hatch" questions! Does absolute truth exist?
Atheist: I find it very dangerous to deal in absolutes and I try to avoid positing them.
Theist: Does absolute truth exist?
Atheist: Dude, I just answered you....
Theist: Does absolute truth exist?
Atheist: I have no fracking idea.
Theist: Is it absolutely true that you don't know if absolute truth exists?
Atheist: I have no fracking idea.
Theist: C'mon! You have to say "Yes" or "No!"
Atheist: Either one would be a dishonest answer.
Theist: But you have to pick one.
Atheist: Why?
Theist: Because.
Atheist: That's a stupid response.
Theist: And once again the angry atheist resorts to name-calling!
Atheist: If I say "yes," I would be contradicting myself and that is dishonest. If I say "no," I am also contradicting myself because if I don't know whether or not absolute truth exists, then it follows that I can't know whether or not I know that for certain.
Theist: Do you know something is true?
Atheist: I assume truth. I assume that things are what they appear to be. We couldn't get through life without doing that.
Theist: Does logic exist?
Atheist: The concept of logic exists as much as the concept of anything else does. Like math, it is a demonstrable concept....unlike gods, for instance.
Theist: Does logic change?
Atheist: It would require a fundamental shift in our perception of reality to do so.
Theist: Is logic universal?
Atheist: As far as we know.
Theist: So, if logic is universal, immaterial, unchanging...then it follows that god X exists, because god X is also universal, immaterial and unchanging.
Atheist: The *concept* of logic is also demonstrable. Is god X demonstrable?
Theist: Well....ummm....no.
Atheist: So basically, you are saying that something exists as long as the *concept* or it does?
Theist: Yes.
Atheist: So you are telling me that unicorns, dragons, sugarplum fairies, Jedi Knights and wizards all exist simply because the concept of them does?
Theist: Those things are imaginary! They're not real! God X is real!
Atheist: How do you know that?
Theist: You can't prove anything without god X, you proved logic exists, therefore god X exists.
Atheist: So.....what you are telling me is: proving the existence of anything at all proves the existence of your favorite particular immaterial, universal and static entity because the existence of everything is predicated upon the existence of your favorite particular immaterial, universal and static entity's existence?
Theist: Yep, that's about it.
Atheist: But how do you know that?
Theist: I simply declare "I believe god X exists" as my starting point and base everything I think say do and feel as though that were true....because it is.
Atheist: But how do you know that it is?
Theist: How do you know that it isn't?
Atheist: I am not claiming that it isn't, but I have no reason to believe that it is and I would like to know why you do.
Theist: I can't tell you.
Atheist: Why not?
Theist: Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine god X's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of his existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Atheist: Do you have incontrovertible proof?
Theist: No.
Atheist: Then shut the hell up!
Atheist: On what do you base that belief?
Theist: I can't tell you.
Atheist: Why not?
Theist: Your presupposition is that there is no god X; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show his existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no god.
Atheist: Um, no. My "presupposition" is that you cannot make a claim that you cannot provide evidenciary support for.
Theist: If I were to have a video tape of god X coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria. If I had prophecies from a really old book fulfilled in a book not as old, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.
Atheist: Do you have a video tape of god X coming down from heaven?
Theist: Well...umm..no.
Atheist: And these thousand eye-witnesses, got any names?
Theist: Well...umm...no. But they were there and saw it, because this really old book that was written back then says so.
Atheist: Great! That must mean that there exists some sort of corroborating evidence to confirm it. Maybe something not written by the authors of that book?
Theist: Well.....not..exactly.
Atheist: Oh. Well....OK...Well these prophecies...are they specific and precise to the date and time and exact names of the people involved? Are they all internally consistent and free of contradictions?
Theist: Well....no.
Athiest: So a lot of them are vague and could be interpreted a number of ways.
Theist: Bingo!
Atheist: And did the authors of this not as old book...did they have access to these prophecies? Because if they did, there is a chance they could have written the narrative to suit the prophecies which would call into question how much of these prophecies were accurate predictions.
Theist: Ummm.....well, they sort of did.
Atheist: Well, do we know who the authors of these texts were?
Theist: Not exactly.
Atheist: Yikes! That's problematic. It's not looking good for your claim.
Theist: See? I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.
Atheist: How do you figure *my* presupposition is the problem?
Theist: Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine god X's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of his existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Atheist: Do you have incontrovertible proof?
Theist: No.
Atheist: What do you have?
Theist: What kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence? I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.
Atheist: Show me a god. Any one will do. Or just give me one logically consistent reason to believe that one exists or can exist. Then give me one shred of evidence that can establish that not only does a god exist, but this god is your particular god X. How do claims about god X fundamentally differ from the thousands of other claims about the thousands of other gods that might also exist when all these claims are based on the untestable claims of people who have claimed some sort of interaction with a divine agent that could may as well be a figment of that person's imagination?
Theist: Ummmm......I don't exactly have any of that stuff.
Atheist: Well....what do you have?
Theist: A list of "escape hatch" questions! Does absolute truth exist?
Atheist: I find it very dangerous to deal in absolutes and I try to avoid positing them.
Theist: Does absolute truth exist?
Atheist: Dude, I just answered you....
Theist: Does absolute truth exist?
Atheist: I have no fracking idea.
Theist: Is it absolutely true that you don't know if absolute truth exists?
Atheist: I have no fracking idea.
Theist: C'mon! You have to say "Yes" or "No!"
Atheist: Either one would be a dishonest answer.
Theist: But you have to pick one.
Atheist: Why?
Theist: Because.
Atheist: That's a stupid response.
Theist: And once again the angry atheist resorts to name-calling!
Atheist: If I say "yes," I would be contradicting myself and that is dishonest. If I say "no," I am also contradicting myself because if I don't know whether or not absolute truth exists, then it follows that I can't know whether or not I know that for certain.
Theist: Do you know something is true?
Atheist: I assume truth. I assume that things are what they appear to be. We couldn't get through life without doing that.
Theist: Does logic exist?
Atheist: The concept of logic exists as much as the concept of anything else does. Like math, it is a demonstrable concept....unlike gods, for instance.
Theist: Does logic change?
Atheist: It would require a fundamental shift in our perception of reality to do so.
Theist: Is logic universal?
Atheist: As far as we know.
Theist: So, if logic is universal, immaterial, unchanging...then it follows that god X exists, because god X is also universal, immaterial and unchanging.
Atheist: The *concept* of logic is also demonstrable. Is god X demonstrable?
Theist: Well....ummm....no.
Atheist: So basically, you are saying that something exists as long as the *concept* or it does?
Theist: Yes.
Atheist: So you are telling me that unicorns, dragons, sugarplum fairies, Jedi Knights and wizards all exist simply because the concept of them does?
Theist: Those things are imaginary! They're not real! God X is real!
Atheist: How do you know that?
Theist: You can't prove anything without god X, you proved logic exists, therefore god X exists.
Atheist: So.....what you are telling me is: proving the existence of anything at all proves the existence of your favorite particular immaterial, universal and static entity because the existence of everything is predicated upon the existence of your favorite particular immaterial, universal and static entity's existence?
Theist: Yep, that's about it.
Atheist: But how do you know that?
Theist: I simply declare "I believe god X exists" as my starting point and base everything I think say do and feel as though that were true....because it is.
Atheist: But how do you know that it is?
Theist: How do you know that it isn't?
Atheist: I am not claiming that it isn't, but I have no reason to believe that it is and I would like to know why you do.
Theist: I can't tell you.
Atheist: Why not?
Theist: Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine god X's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of his existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Atheist: Do you have incontrovertible proof?
Theist: No.
Atheist: Then shut the hell up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)