Monday, December 24, 2012

Why we don't need Yeshua!



     Why would a rational person want that forever-dead cult leader to lead her to the putative Deity anyway? Why would a rational person want to believe in Him anyway?
     We naturalists/ rationalists never enslave ourselves to reason! That is just a red herring to detract from the lack of evidence for the Deity.
     The ideas of the Incarnation and the Trinity as Aquinas  notes rest on faith, not of reason, and we rationalists/naturalists find both incoherent, affirming ignosticism!
      Non-fundamentalists- errantists- favor sophistry as much as any fundamentalists!
      We do mainly good most of the time; hardly are we sinners- coming short of His standards.No we come short of our human morality! Deity has no rights over us, yes, none to judge and contemn us! His whims do not count! His wish to have a relationship with us would be useless should we not want it were He to exist!
    What counts is what is good for sentient beings instead of for the Deity! How immoral to state otherwise!
     Therefore, we need no blood sacrifice for us! What a barbarism! How immoral!
     How blasphemous to reason to declare that due tosin, we wilfully won't obey! No, ti's due to lack of evidence! We seek a better morality!
     This type of way to Him is in part why I am a gnu atheist!
      No! He is not written in our hearts! No sensus divinatis- sense of the Deity- exists. Our moral sense evolved and we refine it. No theistic evolution- unfolding- of morality has occurred due to Him.

Why We Need Jesus | Christianity Today

Why We Need Jesus | Christianity Today

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Kreeft -wrong again!

         Peter Kreeft  advocates self -brainwashing by letting the Holy Spirit into our lives.Affirm  God. This no more than Blaise Pascal's advocating doing religious rituals .
         We rationalists, on the other hand, with Robert Price in the " Reason-Driven Life" urge others to practice living without God.Instead of self-brainwashing, people learn that ti's their own inner resources that gets them going instead of faith.People can find other sources of inspiration.
          We need no divine love and purpose and the future state t o live enjoyoable lives. Human love and our own purposes and this  one life can suffice.
          People would experience life without that superstition. Why should one than k God for finding keys ,especially with all the horrors?Coincidence rules.
          So ti's with "answered prayer"- that post hoc fallacy at work. And people wouldn't rationalize about unanswered ones.
          People would just use natural explanations without ascribing a superstitious intent behind them. There would then be no Lamberth's the God of the explanatory Gap- that elusive ultimate explanation  and no God of Henry Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps. So, Aquinas' superfluity argument that God is superfluous as the ultimate explanation and primary cause holds- boomeranging on his own five ways!
          So, people would hold to the presumption of naturalism that natural causes and expl nations themselves are that ultimate answer and primay cause.
          Why then would any rational person want to  self-brainwash into believing in that superstition?
           Kreef, with Pascal, Alvin Plantinga and William James advocate for people to ignore the non-evidence for Him in this regard. And as Kreeft's twenty arguments are bunk.
          Naturalism is forced, momentous and lively, leading to that more abundant life!
          

Seeing God in the Third Millenium - Oliver Sacks - The Atlantic

Seeing God in the Third Millenium - Oliver Sacks - The Atlantic

The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between): John R. Shook: 9781444336429: Amazon.com: Books

The God Debates: A 21st Century Guide for Atheists and Believers (and Everyone in Between): John R. Shook: 9781444336429: Amazon.com: Books

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy: Michael Bruce, Steven Barbone: 9781444336382: Amazon.com: Books

Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy: Michael Bruce, Steven Barbone: 9781444336382: Amazon.com: Books

Debunking Christianity: The Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga & Victor Reppert

Debunking Christianity: The Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga & Victor Reppert

Poor Cook


         Cook and van Inwagen lose their rebuttal. The credit for that specious argument goes  to Alvin Plantinga who uses the greater good and the unknown reason arguments, but, alas, he is relying on the argument from ignorance, which with the one from personal incredulity underlie most theistic arguments.
          Here theists credulously feel that why, how could only Nature exist but not a counterweight to overcoming evil, and they use the argument from ignorance to plead for God's existence. They fail to discern that evil would arise naturally, because of imperfections, not from some literal or metaphorical Fall.
         Michael Ruse, atheist, is trying to help theists here by claiming that that they can explain the metaphorical Fall, using science. He is misleading them. Never were we perfect, so no kind of Fall happened. Ti's a betrayal of science to accommodate theism.
             Van Inwagen claims that fideism, not the God of rational/natural theology- the one hypothesized- that rings true. Plantinga bellows that why, God is a basic like other minds and the external world. Both men err, because faith begs the question and is just another argument from ignorance!
            To further absolve God of criminality, Plantinga claims that omni-God makes flourishes- the imperfections and thus evils, whilst limited God has to make a perfect world! 
             He further blames evils on Satan, but why, that further shows God's criminality for letting Satan act.
               The other nine arguments will also fail.

Top Ten Arguments against God: #10 (Jeff Cook)

Top Ten Arguments against God: #10 (Jeff Cook)