Atheist group delivers opening message to City CouncilHere is the entire preachment:
"An atheist group gave the opening message for the Sioux Falls City Council meeting Tuesday night — likely a first in city history.
Siouxland Freethinkers President Amanda Novotny said in her message we must “let all voices be heard and understood equally.”"
"Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members, citizens of Sioux Falls, and all those present for this opportunity to provide an inspirational opening to your meeting.Of course, there is no Book Of Atheist Moral Principles, because there is no morality under the concept of Atheism, especially with its parasitic attachment to evolution. So whatever she said is just her, being as politically correct as she thinks is politically correct. But to reference Harry Potter as a source of objective morality (and if it's not, why bother?)... well, J.K.Rowling must be ready to create another universe, and I hope she does; it would be a great place for Atheists to migrate to, and sit around and admire their superiority. I think it would be located near Boston, or maybe a San Francisco city park.
Often at this time, you are asked to bow your heads. Instead, I ask you to lift your head up and look around. Turn your attention to this room - a room that has heard countless discussions, frustrations, and successes; a room where important decisions regarding your city are routinely made.
Now take a moment to soak in the presence of the men and women in this room, gathered here at this time and place to engage in their civic duty, to contribute and work towards creating a better community. Think of the hundreds and thousands of others who are also affected by the ideas shared here. Let all voices be heard and understood equally.
It is also often customary to read from a book during an invocation, and tonight will be no different - I’ll be sharing a quote from J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” in which Professor Albus Dumbledore said:
“Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.”
Athough our differences may be many, we are bound together in similarity as members of the human species. As humans, we have the capacity to appreciate and thank each other; to utilize compassion and reason in our decision making. I ask those present to join me in showing gratitude to the men and women that serve the great city of Sioux Falls. We need only look to each other for guidance, and work together to overcome any challenges we may face."
Seriously, though, look at the quote for a moment: "...if our aims are identical...". There is very little that Atheism generates in its adherents that has any commonality with the aims of a responsible culture, much less identical. The adherents of Atheism are overwhelmingly Leftist, and "humanists" are some of the farthest into Leftist Freethought totalitarianism, given their propensity for worshiping the concept of abstract humanity at the expense of individual humans. Making the New Man was the humanist mantra for a century, and it still is. And consider the phrase, if "our hearts are open". Now apply that idea to the last hundred Atheists you have encountered. The enjoinment is purely put upon the Other to accommodate whatever it is that the Atheist/Humanist is up to at the moment; in other words, accept their chaotic imposition on your culture with an open heart.
They must be seen for what they are, and stopped.
21 comments:
Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.
This atheist has violated his own material beliefs by appropriating dualist parlance.
From Oxford Dictionary
1.Heart=A hollow muscular organ that pumps the blood
2.Heart=the centre of a person’s thoughts and emotions, especially love or compassion:
Number 2 is an inappropriate and unscientific term of "heart".Given atheist beliefs,they cannot under any circumstances use our language.
===================
we have the capacity to appreciate and thank each other; to utilize compassion and reason in our decision making.
The unstated assumptions of this reasoning is that whatever capacity humans possess to do,is acceptable.The keyword of this argument is "capacity",meaning able to do something.
With this line of reasoning all crimes are permissible,since it is in our capacity to do them.
Sorry Stan,hopefully this is my last username change since I started my blog earlier this week.
I'm no longer using Scorpio but Phoenix
"Of course, there is no Book Of Atheist Moral Principles, because there is no morality under the concept of Atheism, especially with its parasitic attachment to evolution."
Parasitic? I would have thought it was symbiotic.
Phoenix,
Fine site, congrats!
Stephen,
Interesting. How about co-parasitic?
Phoenix,
I hadn't thought of it in the naturalist/materialist, literalist sense.
IF [my heart is opened], THEN [My blood will run out and I will die].
She didn't mean that, but do Atheist accept biblical metaphors? Why should anyone accept theirs?
Thanks Stan.You can probably tell that my material is inspired by this blog.I'll be attacking ten infamous atheist quotes in my next article,since atheist bloggers tend to quote them verbatim and without any skepticism.
======
She didn't mean that, but do Atheist accept biblical metaphors? Why should anyone accept theirs?
Exactly,atheists abhor any favorable references to god or dualism but they have no problem co-opting our terms and phrases to make themselves appear humane.We should interpret such terms literally because that's the rule they've set.
Your rallying cry is based on two phrases, one tortuously forced into the wrong context so you could critize it and the other based on the silly notion that nothing redeeming can come from a Harry Potter book. To say your condemnation falls short means to imply you can't close to a valid point somewhere. You didn't, even with your clumsy attempts to bring whatever side issues like evolution into it
"The adherents of Atheism are overwhelmingly Leftist, and "humanists" are some of the farthest into Leftist Freethought totalitarianism, given their propensity for worshiping the concept of abstract humanity at the expense of individual humans." This could not be more wrong. Commonly shared values among atheists include individual freedom, particularly the freedom of thought. "Humanism" does not worship the concept of abstract humanity. That's a common and very frustrating misconception about humanism. Do you know what totalitarianism is? It is the antithesis of humanist ethics.
At the top of the page it says "Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories." I suppose that theists also have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting bigfoot sightings, alien biogenesis, and every religion other than their own then? Oh wait - no they don't! Fortunately for theists, that's not how the burden of proof works.
Paul T
To consider Harry Potter books as a source of moral principle requires that the author have moral authority.
Neither the author nor the character being quoted have moral authority of any sort. So referencing them is much like referencing Bugs Bunny or Ninja Turtles.
You say,
" To say your condemnation falls short means to imply you can't close to a valid point somewhere. You didn't, even with your clumsy attempts to bring whatever side issues like evolution into it "
The point is valid until proven otherwise. Your comment is merely being grouchy and is without actual content. Why not point to the actual failure you claim to see? Rhetoric is not logic.
Jared Hoeft said,
" This could not be more wrong. Commonly shared values among atheists include individual freedom, particularly the freedom of thought. "Humanism" does not worship the concept of abstract humanity. That's a common and very frustrating misconception about humanism. Do you know what totalitarianism is? It is the antithesis of humanist ethics."
Jared, they have fooled you. Read all three of the Humanist Manifestos, and then come back for discussion. Read the First Manifesto very very carefully: it is as totalitarian as one can get. the subsequent manifestos are merely fogging mechanisms to cover the reality of the first manifesto.
Come back when you're ready and we can discuss humanism, any time.
Jared Hoeft also said:
" I suppose that theists also have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting bigfoot sightings, alien biogenesis, and every religion other than their own then? Oh wait - no they don't! Fortunately for theists, that's not how the burden of proof works."
Jared, you now appear to be an immature Atheist, making standard internet Atheist fallacious claims.
If you reject any claim, a scientific claim for example, without giving reasons for rejecting it, then you have no reasoning attached to your rejection. With reasoning, any rejection is itself subject to rational rejection immediately.
The Atheist rejection of burden of rebuttal is a simplistic dodge of intellectual responsibility. If Atheists are to maintain their pose of evidence and logic, then where is it? Silly inapplicable analogies such as you produced are phony logic (Fallacy of False Analogy/Red Herring Fallacy).
Get some logic textbooks and study actual logic; logic is not whatever proceeds from the mouth and it is not whatever dodge you can assert to avoid reasoning, and most certainly not the drivel proceeding from atheist websites.
Independent thought requires knowing and using real, aristotelian logic and avoiding ideological trash.
Come back when you've learned logic.
Stan said:
"Jared, you now appear to be an immature Atheist, making standard internet Atheist fallacious claims... Get some logic textbooks and study actual logic"
You can call me immature all you want, and make unfounded assumptions about my educational history, but that provides nothing to this conversation except ad hominem attacks and irrelevancies. I studied logic extensively in college and I continue to on my own, but that is irrelevant so I will move on.
You said:
"If you reject any claim, a scientific claim for example, without giving reasons for rejecting it, then you have no reasoning attached to your rejection. With reasoning, any rejection is itself subject to rational rejection immediately."
Theistic claims are not scientific claims. In order for a claim to be considered scientific, there must be evidence to support it. When you are trying to reject a claim that seems to have evidence to support it, then yes, you do need to demonstrate why that evidence is flawed or incomplete or inconclusive. However, claims that are asserted without evidence to support them can be dismissed without any reasons given or counter-evidence. The more extraordinary the claim is, the more necessary this becomes.
All of this doesn't mean that there isn't any reasoning attached to the rejection. Atheists give their reasons for rejecting theist claims all the time, thereby fulfilling their burden of rebuttal. The reasoning is simple: if your claim is not supported by evidence, then why should I or anybody else accept it as true? You can claim that Harry murdered Sally with a kitchen knife, but without any evidence to support this claim, nobody needs to give any evidence against your claim, and that in and of itself is a complete rebuttal.
So, what I'm trying to say is that "counter-evidence" and "rebuttal" are two separate things. Atheists rebut theist claims all the time, but they do not need to use evidence to do so, because no evidence is presented in support of the positive claim. Rebutting a claim with no evidence by using evidence to rebut it doesn't make any sense and wouldn't work, anyway. The claim needs to be testable in order to be tested, and theistic claims are not testable, so they are not worth any courtroom sort of time.
As for the Humanist manifestos, I have not yet read them. I will make sure to do so at some point, if I can find the time. I would not consider myself a Humanist. I'm not interested in groups with creeds or organized dogma, and if that's what Humanism is, then I'm not interested. I'm not going to just take your word for it, though. My comments were based on what I currently know of Humanism, which comes from what I have seen from self-identifying Humanists. They don't worship anything, and their ethics appear to be the opposite of totalitarian values.
Jared said,
”Theistic claims are not scientific claims. In order for a claim to be considered scientific, there must be evidence to support it. When you are trying to reject a claim that seems to have evidence to support it, then yes, you do need to demonstrate why that evidence is flawed or incomplete or inconclusive. However, claims that are asserted without evidence to support them can be dismissed without any reasons given or counter-evidence. The more extraordinary the claim is, the more necessary this becomes.”
You are using Hitchen’s Razor; however, there is no scientific, empirical, experimental, falsifiable but not falsified, replicable but not replicated, open data evidence to support the razor. So, without “scientific” evidence, which you require, your position is without force or merit. Plus, it is self-refuting, and therefore fails logic, as well as your demand for scientific evidentiary verifiability.
Further, your claim is posited out of the Naturalist/Materialist worldview, which excludes any/all non-physical knowledge, yet cannot prove under Naturalism or Materialism that such knowledge cannot exist. That is why Naturalism/Materialism fail logic: they cannot prove their own claim for exclusivity is valid by using their own premises and rules: internally contradictory, a logic failure.
And you commit the Atheist Category Error regarding the careless and fallacious use of the term "evidence", which I will discuss below.
”All of this doesn't mean that there isn't any reasoning attached to the rejection. Atheists give their reasons for rejecting theist claims all the time, thereby fulfilling their burden of rebuttal. The reasoning is simple: if your claim is not supported by evidence, then why should I or anybody else accept it as true? You can claim that Harry murdered Sally with a kitchen knife, but without any evidence to support this claim, nobody needs to give any evidence against your claim, and that in and of itself is a complete rebuttal.”
This is the standard Atheist Category Error. When an Atheist demands physical evidence for a non-physical entity, he has made the logic error: Category Error. Further, the issue is not physical evidence at all, it is answering logical arguments with logical rebuttals. So the charge stands, untouched. By refusing their intellectual responsibility to give a logical reason for rejecting logical arguments, the Atheist demonstrates that he has no logic to present in favor of Atheism, but merely blind rejectionism. This error is committed intentionally, usually, and is rarely owned by the Atheist who commits it; only serious Atheist philosophers own it.
These principles are so basic that I am skeptical of your claim to be a student of logic.
Your next statement confirms your Category Error:
”So, what I'm trying to say is that "counter-evidence" and "rebuttal" are two separate things. Atheists rebut theist claims all the time, but they do not need to use evidence to do so, because no evidence is presented in support of the positive claim. Rebutting a claim with no evidence by using evidence to rebut it doesn't make any sense and wouldn't work, anyway. The claim needs to be testable in order to be tested, and theistic claims are not testable, so they are not worth any courtroom sort of time.”
All logical claims are testable, using the Aristotelian principles, of Reductio Ad Absurdum and grounding in the First Principles.
Your use of evidence is incorrect, because of the Category Error. To deny the necessity of providing logical reasoning for rejecting logical arguments is irrational and is an abandonment of intellectual responsibility.
Your denialism is based firmly in the failed principles of Naturalism/Materialism.
”As for the Humanist manifestos, I have not yet read them. I will make sure to do so at some point, if I can find the time. I would not consider myself a Humanist. I'm not interested in groups with creeds or organized dogma, and if that's what Humanism is, then I'm not interested. I'm not going to just take your word for it, though. My comments were based on what I currently know of Humanism, which comes from what I have seen from self-identifying Humanists. They don't worship anything, and their ethics appear to be the opposite of totalitarian values.”
If you "find the time"? What an excuse. You can access them directly from this blog.
Read the Manifestos, unless you don't want to know. And ask yourself why Freethought allows only certain premises, and not any others. Unless you don't want to know. I have found that most amateur Atheists don't want to know.
You may have a good point about the responsibility of atheists to use logical reasoning when rejecting a logical claim. Most of the atheists I know do this all the time, but I do find it annoying when atheists use the burden of proof as a get-out-of-meaningful-debates-free card. I recognize have more to learn about this subject, but clearly I won't be learning more here. You are disrespectful and arrogant, and that makes me not want to listen to you, even though you seem to have some important things to say about the atheism/theism debate. I don't want to get into the evidence/categories discussion, because I've played this game, and it just turns into a pointless argument about the definitions of knowledge, truth, and the types of evidence. forgive me for not being specific enough.
Jared,
When people come in here and tell me that I am wrong and then give me the terrifically simplistic reasons for why I am wrong and they are right, I do respond in a terse and pointed fashion. I find that Atheists do not respond to any other manner, because they are out to ridicule and bully, not to actually engage in logical discourse. On this blog I make certain that the Atheist knows in advance that I will not be ridiculed or bullied, and that they can expect analysis of their every comment. Most internet Atheists are intellectually stunted and are massively illogical, indicating an emotional attachment, not a logical, rational, evidence based decision.
When you gave those unreasoned positions to show me that I am wrong, I assumed that you are the same as many, many I have had explain to me before.
Perhaps you are of a different breed, and you do appear to be at this point. You don't need to listen to me, you can browse through prior threads any time you wish.
However, you didn't come here with questions, you came here to tell me that I am wrong. That is still where it stands, isn't it? If you want to have a discussion, then what issue would you like to discuss? You have already prejudicially discounted one area of discussion based on other encounters - not an auspicious beginning. But name a topic and let's have a go.
I apologize for my quick response to your post and blog. Now, you suggested that because God is not a physical entity, it is a categorical error for Atheists to demand physical evidence for God. If God is not physical, then what is God? How do you define God? How can we have evidence of something that lies apart from physical reality as we know it? More importantly, how will we know when we have found non-physical evidence of God, and how could we (conceivably) disprove the existence of God (falsifiability)? I don't believe in anything that isn't explained physically. Why should I? If there is no conceivable way to prove something to be false, then there is no conceivable way to know if it is true, either.
Great, Jared, I'm always up for a good conversation.
Can we take your questions one at a time? Let's take "non-material/non-physical" first. I'll give some examples:
1. Meaning. A wag once claimed to have a jar full of meaning which he aimed to sell.
2. Qualia. This means the internal experience of something, say the color red. It cannot be removed from an individual for objective examination.
3. Intellect. This cannot be removed from an individual for objective examination.
4. Quantum entanglement. No physical connection can be observed between particle pairs, yet the communication link exists, apparently faster than the speed of light, violating Special Relativity.
5. Mind. A brain can be observed objectively; a mind cannot be removed from an individual to be observed objectively, it must be observed based on secondary effects which imply its existence.
6. Mathematics and logic. These are relationship oriented and are not specific to any certain physical object; if they were, then they would be determined by objects, with each object having its own math relationships and logical existence.
There are more, but this half dozen should get a conversation started.
Post a Comment