Thursday, November 29, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Friday, November 23, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
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?
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?
Monday, November 19, 2012
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.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)