Saturday, December 22, 2012

Catholics for Choice,yes!

   Catholic for Choice, as those statistics noted in the previous article do speak for most American Catholics. Fir this anti-theist that is luxurious- people who don't depend on the Vatican to do their thinking
    The Vatican uses dubious facts, with impeccable logic to make castles in the air instead of using real facts to reach earthly conclusion!
      

Catholics For Choice Whine To The Huffington Post: Everyone Leaves Feeling Gratified

Catholics For Choice Whine To The Huffington Post: Everyone Leaves Feeling Gratified

Friday, December 21, 2012

Hell As The Absence of God

Hell As The Absence of God

Reason saves,not that forever dead cult leader!


     Reason saves us when we properly use it, whilst the very notion of Yeshua as our savior betrays morality and - humanity!
     We mainly do good. Our doing wrong goes against others,never against the putative Deity! We perforce then are not sinners deserving of eternal Hell or annihilation.
     To sin means to act against His will, but His will has no right to rule us or judge us anyway: we are independent beings! Theologian John Piper clamours that as the Deity ranks to the utmost any sin against Him also ranks to the utmost,deserving Hell for the perpetrator. No, punishment must be proportionate to the wrong. And again, no relation exists betwixt Him and us for judging. 
      No rational and decent being would ever have Hell and never would have blood sacrifice done for expiation or for any other reason! Those two notions bespeak barbarism?
      Why then would any rational and decent human want to worship  such a monster? Paul Copan claims that He is no such monster, but he belies the truth.
      France's Reign of Terror  with the Goddess of Reason betrayed reason!    
      Yet Piper and other theologians and apologists have the temerity of calling us sinners, deserving of Hell! We should ever mock such fools!   
      At our level of consciousness,whence we gain our rights and liberties, not from the Deity or from the state, per Lamberth's argument from autonomy, we know that evil is evil,never any reason for divine neglect. 
      All should overcome the superstition that is religion : let reason rule!
     Yes, some people just cannot overcome this superstition.  
      What  dio you think about all this?

Plantinga- solecistic,sophisticated sophist of woeful,wiley woo!


    Alvin Plantinga ranks with Sylvia Brown[e] as a purveyor of woo,even though he uses symbolic logic and tricks of rhetoric.
    His EAAN, as noted in the preceding article, is just one of his fusillades against reason.
    I suppose he'd add that why, the Devil has us making errors as he states that perhaps the Devil has something to do with natural disasters. That's one unneeded explanation added to another that is supposed itself to be the primary cause and the sufficient reason but is only a mystery, and which with its convoluted, ad hoc assumptions violates the Ockham, and with God not having referents as Creator and so forth and having incoherent,contradicted attributes as the ignostic argument notes cannot possibly exist, being in the same category as square circles and married bachelors!
     He overlooks that adaptation  is for the near optimum -never necessarily the best.Thus, our faculties need no divine guidance to find the truth. That we do by trial and error, using intersubjectivity to make for objectivity.
      Per Lamberth's inherency argument, objective reality, regularity,chaos, order and the descriptions -laws- of Nature,M.L.] inhere in Nature, and thus the putative Deity would perforce depend on them,being then Himself the secondary cause, because like ethics , they are independent of Him.  
      Ti's superstition per the Lamberth reduced animism= theism argument that that is what theism is and so is as superstitious as full animism and polytheism! We  need no supernatural intent behind natural forces or Nature herself: any posited intent is thus superstitious.
        He maintains to account  for imperfections, omni-God makes flourishes , whilst the limited one has to make things more perfect! This absurd argument answers itself!
        Also, as those imperfections can be human or natural disasters, he accounts for evil is that it is for our free wills. No, we have determined volition. Anyway, he uses the greater good and the unknown reason arguments, whch themselves are one  f rom ignorance, which with the one from personal incredulty underlies other theistic ones.
          Per Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven , the Deity could have had it such that we'd have determined volition and a guarantee never to do wrong.That would be consistent but no hobgoblin of  little minds.
         He claims that we have the sensus divinitatis- inward sense of the Deity, and that gives us the warrant to have as basic the Deity as basic as other minds and the exterior world. Hardly, or no need would have arisen for arguments for Him. And we non-theists do not accept Him as real due to sin but ,because no evidence exists for Him. Theists proffer misinterpretations of evidence as evidence for His very existence.
      He claims with that that should upon reading the Scriptures or some other religious experience occurs, one has an epiphany, that underpins the sensus.Hardly, as those very Scriptures contradict themselves and reality! They contradict science and history. They exhort harmful morality for the most part.
      Plantinga waddles in the mud of  woo.The shame is that his creative mind does not work on projects that would help humanity but instead helps keep so many enthrall in superstition!
     What would you add? Any dissent?

Plantinga

Plantinga

Monday, December 17, 2012

Desiring Morality


      We  humanists desire to have a rational morality. I am putting forth the covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism,which I endeavor to maintain that humanism ourrranks any theistic divine command theory.
         Morality dictates what is best for sentient beings. It finds that the will of the supposed Deity for a relationship with us is utterly irrelevant to morality and is in fact immoral in how to come about!
         His tastes and whims mean nothing to morality. He has no right over us and no right to judge us and put us into any Hell! This upsets theists,because they seem to think that might makes right.They claim that His omniscience gives Him the right to prescribe ethics and morality for us. No, they overlook that with the differences amongst the different sects, He speaks with a forked tongue!
         A divine command theory must take that into account. Perhaps, a theorist would maintain that why, as  we have many virtues and morals in common, we can resort to those, omitting then the differences.
         Why should He reprove evil does in the future state instead of not letting the free wills of the Pol Pots to override those of millions as Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven enjoins?
         How many theists would become immoral were they to become atheists? None. Oh, there would actuall be a moral improvement in some matters, such as sex!
         How many people consider doing something wrong but decide not to due to His influence. None. Indeed, many commit wrongs due to thinking that that is His will.
          We are not sinners- beings who just cannot measure up to His standards. We do mainly good most of the time. Ti's hightly irresponsbible to betray people with that nonsense!
         We  hardly could slight  the supposed Deity! He would be impervious to slights. Anyway, ti's invidious to claim that measured against His nature, any wrong would be tantamount to any great wrong. That is highly irrational and immoral!
        That attitude is totalitarian! Why, it is that of the Stalins! The previous writer merits contemnation as a misanthropist! His biblical ethic is highly misanthropic. The notion of Hell is that.
        Such people bespeak a love of might makes right and disregard of real morality.
        We should ever mock such stupidity and such purveyors of immorality!
        We have a higher moral standard than those of the Ages of Faith!
        Please add other moral considerations to this!

A Lesson for All from Newtown - Desiring God

A Lesson for All from Newtown - Desiring God

Discovery: Apostle Paul accepted #Christian #homosexuals #paulonhomosexuality | PR NewsChannel

Discovery: Apostle Paul accepted #Christian #homosexuals #paulonhomosexuality | PR NewsChannel

Saturday, December 15, 2012

No to Chandler and to Stevens

     Soterian then expressely maintains that Yahweh is narcissistic! All is for His glory. And the other Yahweh for humanity in the end amounts to the same,because the writers of that anthology   present His as not interested in what is best for us.
      No Deity has dominion over us anyway! As independent beings, we owe none anything-no worship and obedience. To proclaim otherwise proclaims that might is right.
       It  ill seves to  claim that why, with His omniscience, He'd know more than we and thus would have the right to declare morality and to judge us.As Yahweh  sends humanity evils, why would any rational and moral being ever want to serve HIm?
      The Atonement bespeaks just blood sacrifice just as evil as that of the Aztecs and others: the innocent should never serve as expiation for the guilty.
      Yet, according to that execrable anthology, we break His morality when in many cases,no, we affirm life! The sexual attitude is misanthropic. The commands to  stone and the notion of Hell bespeak savagery. 
       We are not sinners: we do mostly good. None should ever face Hell,even the one of just annihilation,except for the Hitlers.
      Universalism, that all eventually go to Heaven cannot overwhelm the fact that the duty of Yahweh was to have put us into a better place in the first place,per Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven, that one -way street for Him.
        Thus, both Matt Chandler and Mark Stevens err.

Saturday Book Review: Matt Chandler

Saturday Book Review: Matt Chandler

Monday, December 3, 2012

AC Grayling - Origin of the specious | New Humanist

AC Grayling - Origin of the specious | New Humanist

My deconversion


    At sixteeen, I deconverted. I only wanted to know were there God. I never thought about any future state whatsoever. At ten, I became aware of some biblical contradictions and evolution. Then at sixteen I read Nathaniel Branden's existence exist, discernng no need for God.
    I was inscensed about Hell- and rightly so! I knew that no moral being would even consider Hell.
    I just had to read all I  could about what was wrong with arguments for God. I felt somewhat taken aback that I just had an emotional need for that,because maybe Iwas wrong! I came across arguments that I thought might be wrong but couldn't discern why, but with time I found out why
               I deconverted with my volition!
     Seven years ago, I started posting and started threads at various sites as an anti-thei Some- including atheists- objected to my style.Oh, I had to learn to use spell check and to space. Some liked my style-ornate at times.Why, some agreed with me, and  others disagreed. So, style was irrelevant!
      Then a little later came my blogging. Now I have more than 120 blogs where I compose my own articles and comments and reblog others".
       Now, ti's up to my readers to comment here and at any of my  others.
 

Why I Write About My Deconversion

Why I Write About My Deconversion

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Recovering Agnostic

Recovering Agnostic

This atheist answers questions « On Leaving Fundamentalist Christianity

This atheist answers questions « On Leaving Fundamentalist Christianity

Atheist Answers Questions From a Christian | Atheist Revolution

Atheist Answers Questions From a Christian | Atheist Revolution

The Meaning of Life | A Tippling Philosopher

The Meaning of Life | A Tippling Philosopher

On meaning and purpose without God | A Tippling Philosopher

On meaning and purpose without God | A Tippling Philosopher

‘How do atheists find meaning in life?’ - - The Washington Post

‘How do atheists find meaning in life?’ - - The Washington Post

God fails triple morality test | Machines Like Us

God fails triple morality test | Machines Like Us

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence | Against the New Taboo | Big Think

The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence | Against the New Taboo | Big Think

Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting the Arguments For God

Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting the Arguments For God

Rosa Rubicondior: What Makes You So Special?

Rosa Rubicondior: What Makes You So Special?

Never back to Christ- the cult leader!

       Never have I regretted turning atheist at age sixteen! Never have I wanted a future state. I prefer reality.
       Despite even some atheists, atheism inspires no forlornness for me. I  only wanted to know were there the Deity? Once, I discovered that no, I just wanted to know how to overcome theistic twaddle! I found argumentation that felt wrong and found out why it was wrong.
      Why would any rational person ever want to accept Muhammad as the Prophet or Yeshua as the Lord when we reality proffers enjoyable knowledge rather than woo. Why would any rational person want to find their barbaric notions of salvation?
      Why would any rational person ever want to join errantists in their error of accepting any of their fables as meaningful when we can find better sources of inspiration elsewhere than in the bowels of that twaddle?
      Why would I need the myth of the future state when ti's impossible for one to exist? Where would Heaven and Hell exist anyway? Mere barbarians just made them up. How could either exist when like the unicorn, men just made them up?
       "Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate.' Inquiring Lynn

        Haughty John Haught, Francisco Jose Ayala, William Lane Craig and Augustine can whine all they will, but no need for us to be restless when we're not in the Deity's bosom? That unsubstantiated Augustine's argument from angst betrays our need to be rational by seeking help with existential problems- those of why me, etc. The unsubstantiated argument from happiness-purpose says the same twaddle, only positively. No Deity helps others when the help themselves- just their own inner resources comes to the fore. Why take ones own efforts as divine related? One should take inspiration from rational resource to get those inner resources going.
         Haught claims that earlier atheists were more honest in seeing existential despair with  atheism. No evidence exists for that insult. Those atheists had their own problems.
         Ayala claims that the supernatural supports our values. Again, why reify that twaddle? Reality supports them. He, without substantiation, claims that we need Him to overcome angst and have divine love and divine purpose for our lives and the future state. No, human love and our own meanings and purposes and this one life suffice.  
         We are not any divine potter's pottery! What a tremendous transvaluation and travesty of our lives! Why should we be mere things, which they project onto us as our naturalist view.
        No Deity has rights over us or to even judge us or punish us!
        Per Lamberth's argument from autonomy, we derive our rights from our level of consciousness so that neither the state nor the Deity grants us rights. That is a false dilemma that theocons use to con their sheep to accept their twaddle for the Deity and a tirade against the justified Nanny State. 

        Theism then lacks any moral suasion for us to recognize Deity as having influence over us. We should rather- and no false dilemma- follow " The Reason-based Life" and practice self -and other acceptance as Robert Price advises us in that book and Albert Ellis in " The Myth of Self-Esteem, respectively."
        Then this cuts off theistic pragmatic arguments for belief in the supernatural.
        
        Therefore, why, the previous article peddlucidly also affirms this.
        What do you maintain?

Atheist Revolution (in this message: 2 new items) - mllamberth@gmail.com - Gmail

Atheist Revolution (in this message: 2 new items) - mllamberth@gmail.com - Gmail

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Errancy- no go!



                 Errancy has no foundations. It has no reason to guide anyone anymore than inerrancy. It jettisons contradictions within and without ,flawed morality but still insists on Yeshua as the savior. Yet, it won't jettison that when no need  for him as such exists!
               His being the Savior means the enshrinement of blood sacrifice. No need exists for a supposedly innocent person to die for the guilty ; indeed such is immoral. Barbaric minds just made up the twaddle so as to occasion deliverance from sin.
               Sin cannot exist as it means not measuring up to the Deity when what counts is what is moral, quite anther matter considering that the Euthyphro dispenses of Him as the moral legislator. Particular sects differ on what counts as sin. So, He has a forked tongue!
                 What is right for sentient beings and the environment overwhelms any theistic morality and any good one actually reflects our humanist ones. No theistic morality can ground itself in the Deity, No, we humanists ground ours ontologically in human nature- the moral sense.
                Any moral and rational being knows that expiation for wrong-doing is person-centered. Barbarian attitudes must never enter the fray of moral concerns We no longer stone people [ except in barbarian societies]. We act morally superior to those of the long ages of faith as Steven Pinker and Richard Carrier vouchsafe. We proportion sentencing to the crime. Never would we want people to endure eternal damnation!
                  Christianity and Islam have the problem of Hell that adds to their problem of evil. We humanists objurgate such theistic " ethics!"
                   Errancy cannot gainsay this with prattle about diminished versions of Hell! No Deity has the  right to punish us anyway! Ti's an argument from ignorance to claim that why, He has omniscience so that He should have that authority: we have enough intelligence to discern that no, we can judge any Deity, finding any guilty of mistreatment with all the horrors and this notion of Hell. It does mock reason, morality and - humanity to prattle for that He knows best attitude!
                   Morality needs no transcendental enforcer; people can enforce their own doing-right.











                   So, why bespeak his salvific power? Ah, is it supposedly salvation in the sense of being born-again? Why, anyone can do herself over by clinging to some ideology or whatever!
                    And just what are the good metaphors for those wanton verses? What is the one for the Deluge- that biocide? What is the good one for murdering the first-born of the Egyptians? And for any of the Qur'anic ones, we humanists query likewise.
                   
                  

Why Progressive Interpretations Of The Old Testament Still Do Not Justify Its God Morally

Why Progressive Interpretations Of The Old Testament Still Do Not Justify Its God Morally

Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

God

God

Thursday, October 25, 2012

I'm not just His thing!

I am an independent being: I owe  no worship to any other being nor would any God own me as Lamberth's argument from autonomy proclaims. By virtue of my level of consciousness,  I derive my  independence, so no God nor the state grants me rights. The U.S. and Georgia's constitutions enable for the federal and state governments to protect my rights.
 I am not a thing to which any God grants purposes as that idiot Paul claims that we are pottery and He, our potter, has rights over us. It betrays humanity to claim that it needs Him to grant it purpose.
 We form our own meanings and purposes. I find enough good in my life to enjoy it but too much unrequited evil to find any God. This purposeless Cosmos  does not give me disvalue as  I myself have value. Others and I myself value me.
 What sense could ever lie behind the twaddle that without God and the future state, I am valueless? What ever I do might just have momentary value or lasting value but I need no immortality to have those values. What the Founders did sill lives as  our gargantuan value, even though someday this Earth will be no more.
 " Lie is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate," Inquiring Lynn
 I need no God that the unsubstantiated arguments from angst and from happiness-purpose  prattle! I got therapy for my angst and I make my own happiness.
 None of this implies that I consider myself God as theists so prattle! I follow covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism- that realistic theory that relies our our evolved moral sense that we have to refine. As a rational person to be consistent, I must be nice to others as I want them to be  nice to me- the Platinum Rule.. I must use reason and facts alone with my refined, moral sense.
I desire to be moral,because that partakes of rationality. Why would I want to harm others without cause? Why would I want to be even an egoist? Why without the morality of those barbarians who made up all theistic ethics , would anything go? What a cruel blasphemy to most of humanity that is!
 I need no divine enforcer of morality. I need no God to ground  my moral ontology: our well-being  t itself  ground morality ontologically- in ourselves and in consequences. Others fault Sam Harris for insisting on that well-being, but that is objective: we discern the consequences to others' and our own well-being. We discern how to use these two notions of objectivity [1] equity and equality and [2] universality,applying to all. We override our mere whims and tastes with our considered moral judgment.
 Covenant morality proclaims our planetary ethic: other nations count. We give charity to other peoples and help them otherwise personally or through the federal government.
 Covenant morality proclaims our inter-dependence by which through government we can help all. That  instantiates no tyrranny but simply putting our resources together to help those without resources who could be us one day.
 This applies to person hood so that just having life renders no entity a person. People have brains and can feel pain. Thus, abortion is moral. We need no God speaking telepathically through mere people whether or not it is moral!And it is moral to save the whales!
To find divine intent when science finds none makes for reduced animism= theism as Lamberth's reduced animism argument proclaims.
 When I pass away, I'll be that nothing I was before my birth. Again, this one life has value.
 

Ebon Musings: Answers to 11 Questions for Atheists

Ebon Musings: Answers to 11 Questions for Atheists

Monday, October 22, 2012

Rationalizing-double-talk

Inerrantists sure know how to do double-talk with their far-fetched rationalizations! Errantists cannot defend their scriptures. Prof. Irwin Corey makes more sense than either.
 William Lane Craig and Paul Copan defend the commands for genocide as justice and that the children would be in Heaven. What insouciance and immorality! Fortunately, the Tanakh's account never occurred!
  Just what are those excellent metaphors for the egregious scriptural passages that errantists ever find?
 Both sides cannot meet rational criteria for authencating that rubbish!
 What do you say?

SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES Concluded | Debunking Christianity

SOME MISTAKES OF MOSES Concluded | Debunking Christianity