Also in 2012, a new treaty – supported by 89 nations – sanctions official curbs on the Internet by 2015. Only 20 countries are boycotting the UN treaty. Thankfully, the US is on the right side of this one for now.
Ephesians 5.13-14 states, "But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."(NIV)
We tend to either gravitate towards truth or away from it. Jeremiah 9.3 outlines how knowing God enlists a proper desire to be valiant for truth and righteousness: "And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me."(NIV)
There's a reason why the global organization against corruption is called "Transparency International" Unfortunately, the US has been heading in the opposite direction with both George W. Bush and Barack Obama exploiting the "State Secrets Privilege Act" in order to drastically reduce transparency in the US government. Obama has been seriously considering his own "Internet Kill Switch" as well.
Tags: 89 countries approve Internet censorship, statistics on free-speech, State Secrets Privilege Act SSPA, Bush, Obama, transparency versus corruption
Dunning–Kruger effect at full capacity as always.
ReplyDeletePopular atheists offer some primo examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Where to begin?
DeleteA. Dawkins' arrogant, ignorant (and false) assertion that Darwin's theory, "...completely rejected supernatural agents."
B. Darwin's quote from Origin of the Species 6th edition underscores that his theory was based upon divine origin: The origin of life, “…having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..."[2]
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-dawkins-reinvents-darwin.html
A. PZ Myers arrogant, ignorant (and false) assertion that, "Nothing must be held sacred."
B. PZ Myer's confused and dyslexic answer regarding bestiality: "I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way."
A. Stephen Pinker's boastful and ignorant comment: "Harris makes a powerful case for a morality that is based on human flourishing and thoroughly enmeshed with science and rationality."
B. The reality. No "enmeshed rationality" whatsoever has ever been presented, just delusion: Atheist Muehlhauser outlines, "How has science shown that morality must be defined in terms of “the well-being of conscious creatures”? Harris does not say. Massimo Pigliucci has stated, "He [Harris] is, however, no more successful in deriving 'ought' from 'is' than anyone else has ever been." Even the not-so-thoughtful PZ Myers has offered that "Harris is smuggling in an unscientific prior" in his theory.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-sam-harris-human-flourishing-is-not.html
A: Austin Cline does not miss an opportunity to boastfully deride belief in God at his About.com site.
B. What is the ultimate reasoning behind Austin Cline's beliefs? “Atheism doesn't need to be illogical and, if it is, that doesn't matter.” -- Austin Cline
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-polls-highlight-happiness-health.html
And, by the way, you still need to come up with some answers at the previous post:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/ny-new-year-2013-major-philosophical.html?showComment=1357213620486#c2306924455910301287
Real popular atheists with real arrogant ignorance.
Kinda completely off-topic, but who cares?
DeleteR:Dawkins' arrogant, ignorant (and false) assertion that Darwin's theory, "...completely rejected supernatural agents."
As always, you do not know your left from the right. Apples and oranges are all the same to you...
The theory of evolution completely rejects supernatural agents as Dawkins pointed out. Darwin s quote is about abiogenesis, not evolution.
R:PZ Myers arrogant, ignorant (and false) assertion that, "Nothing must be held sacred."
Quote minning. You are a dishonest idiot, Rick. It was pointed out to you before that Myers meant by his words that nothing should be immune to investigation.
R:The reality. No "enmeshed rationality" whatsoever has ever been presented, just delusion
1. Sam Harris presented a hypothesis, not an iron rule
2. We have plenty of data from neuroscience, psychology and so on to make the case.
R:What is the ultimate reasoning behind Austin Cline's beliefs? “Atheism doesn't need to be illogical and, if it is, that doesn't matter.” -- Austin Cline
You have zero credibility with your dishonesty, Rick. Though, I agree with Austin. It does not matter if atheism is logical or not if it is true.
R:Real popular atheists with real arrogant ignorance
So far it was you that misquoted people, cherry picked data and made ad hominem attacks.
>The theory of evolution completely rejects supernatural agents as Dawkins pointed out.
Delete- Here is a good example of how atheists disregard use, meaning and context in the English language. If you had read the context of Darwin's theory, you would have realized your errors:
Charles Darwin prefaced the The Origin of Species with this quote from Francis Bacon: 'Let no man ... think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy...'[7] The "book of God's word" signifies the importance of scripture. The "book of God's works" signifies The Book of Nature, as a testimony of God's creation. The acknowledgement of divinity and philosophy in the preface acknowledges the fact that Darwin understood his theory of evolution should be understood within a larger context. Not only that, when coupled with the conclusion of the book, we see that Darwin did not reject divine agency in creation, he saw it as compatible. And he proposed that the divine creation of life was the springboard by which evolution could take place.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-dawkins-reinvents-darwin.html
>It was pointed out to you before that Myers meant by his words that nothing should be immune to investigation.
- It's always amusing how atheists want to completely ignore what other atheists actually write and then explain what they 'really meant' based on their insecurities. This is quite dishonest. Anyone reading these comments can go back and read original comments for themselves linked to original sources and form their own judgments of what what meant. Some of PZ's quotes are at the following link:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/pz-meyers-animal-sex-big-question-for.html
Others are here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html
Reynold's comments outline the love of ignorance atheists display. At first Reynold defends Myers:
"He's responded to you all that he needs to." (December 28, 2012 6:04 PM)
Then, in the very same thread, Reynold admits the answers are not adequate:
"If he knew of some circumstances, he'd tell you."(January 1, 2013 2:55 PM)
Dunning–Kruger effect at full capacity. Go look for yourself:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/12/wl-craig-christmas-message-how.html?showComment=1357128494222#c7368249630682825216
>1. Sam Harris presented a hypothesis, not an iron rule.
- A terribly founded hypothesis, not at all "enmeshed rationality" - quite the opposite of what Pinker and other ignorant atheists have proclaimed. Dunning–Kruger effect at full capacity.
>Though, I agree with Austin. It does not matter if atheism is logical or not if it is true.
- You, like Austin, have offered the epitome of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Atheists do not believe in divine revelation. Some atheists, such as Buddhists, do offer a mystical approach. But when materialist, secular humanist atheists believe that something is true, it should have a logical and rational explanation, even if that logical and rational explanation has not yet been discovered.
Therefore, these types of comments never cease to amaze me. The acknowledgement that atheism is illogical is not only in plain sight, it is often confessed. And yet, the same atheists will vehemently deny the possibility of God's existence.
The way you have been throwing around the term "Dunning–Kruger effect" makes me wonder if understand in the first place, Rick. Google it.
DeleteR:Here is a good example of how atheists disregard use, meaning and context in the English language. If you had read the context of Darwin's theory, you would have realized your errors
That is irrelevant, Rick. My point still stands. Dawkins was speaking about the theory of evolution and Darwin was speaking about abiogenesis. Full stop.
R:The acknowledgement of divinity and philosophy in the preface acknowledges the fact that Darwin understood his theory of evolution should be understood within a larger context.
Yes and Pythagoras thought that his mathematical theorems should be understood in the context of reincarnation like from beans to humans... However, that has no bearing on the mathematical theorems.
R:This is quite dishonest. Anyone reading these comments can go back and read original comments for themselves linked to original sources and form their own judgments of what what meant.
Indeed, it is quite dishonest from your part. Just provide a link to the original post of Myers without your delusional commentaries, Rick. Readers can judge themselves what PZ meant by "nothing should be held sacred".
R:A terribly founded hypothesis, not at all "enmeshed rationality" - quite the opposite of what Pinker and other ignorant atheists have proclaimed.
Again and again you provide bold assertion without any good arguments...
R:The acknowledgement that atheism is illogical is not only in plain sight, it is often confessed. And yet, the same atheists will vehemently deny the possibility of God's existence.
I see that your straw man factory is doing well, Rick. I was speaking about Arguments from fallacy.
A person can arrive at a true conclusion using faulty logic.
Atheism itself is completely logical and rational.
Furtheremore, many do not deny the possibility of god s existence when we are presented with a coherent concept (that is not the case of the christian god). However, a coherent concept is not a valid proof to accept an extraordinary statement.
Anonymous,
Delete>I was speaking about Arguments from fallacy.
- Well, I was offering a very straightforward quote from Austin Cline, with no reference whatsoever to any logical "arguments" or "Arguments from fallacy" in particular, and you agreed with Austin Cline's statement:
"Though, I agree with Austin. It does not matter if atheism is logical or not if it is true."
Dunning–Kruger effect at full capacity. It is evident that both you and Austin are 'strong atheists' confident in your beliefs. However, it is illogical, on a very basic level, to be a secular humanist and a strong atheist, because only agnosticism, not atheism, objectively accommodates the fact that God's existence cannot be proved or disproved empirically.
Yes, the shining 'logic' of secular humanist strong atheists is apparent at first glance.
1. A very strong belief.
2. In something which cannot be proven empirically.
3. By someone who purports that empirical knowledge is ultimately the only valid basis of reliable knowledge.
Gotta love it. It doesn't really seem to take an 'argument' per se in order to reveal what is illogical in this picture.
Or do you believe that those three points I've just noted form an actual argument?
to be a secular humanist and a strong atheist, because only agnosticism, not atheism, objectively accommodates the fact that God's existence cannot be proved or disproved empirically.
DeleteSo; by this assertion, it is illogical to be anything *but* an agnostic, since God's existence cannot be proved or disproved empirically. All you have is faith.
1. A very strong belief.
2. In something which cannot be proven empirically.
3. By someone who purports that empirical knowledge is ultimately the only valid basis of reliable knowledge.
You're forgetting something, Rick; you're equating "cannot be proven empirically" with "lacks any contrary evidence."
To a secular humanist strong atheist, there is no evidence for the existence of God, indeed, there is no useful and coherent *concept* of God as presented. Therefore, not believing in the existence of something for which there is no evidence and no single coherent concept is hardly illogical. It is not quite as clear as failing to believe in the colorless green ideas sleeping furiously, but it's nowhere near as illogical as you are trying to portray it.
Or do you believe that those three points I've just noted form an actual argument?
Not at all; but that's not the argument being presented. It's your straw-man.
For anyone new to this blog, you may wonder why I decline to address certain individuals in debate. I have found that certain individuals are prone to repeated unsubstantiated slander and this simply makes attempts at dialogue unfruitful.
DeleteAfter a prolonged game of cat and mouse, Imnotandrei finally admitted on September 10 that he had made a false and slanderous claim that an article of mine had been "discredited" without showing any evidence of this whatsoever:
If it is so important to you, I'll say it -- on August 28th, it had not been formally discredited.
Yet, even though he admitted this at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar. Imnotandrei has claimed my article here is a lie because famous atheist apologists today do supposedly utilize logic properly and adequately in their lives and arguments. Though not in my article, he cited Stephen Law as an example. However, Law had displayed a low regard for logic and logical principles in his attitude as a professional philosopher.
In a post of his, Stephen Law had claimed that he was "more impressed" by Dawkins' chapter in the God Delusion outlining his central argument after Law had read it for the second time. Later, however, when repeatedly asked to comment on the logic of the chapter, Law stated,"I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed..."
When I asked Law to present a summary of his favorite argument , his EGC argument, he stated, "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick." In accordance with the bare minimum of logical consequence, the form and wording of an argument are highly important and so we can see that Law does not seem to hold a high regard for very basic logical principles. Thus, Imnotandrei's knee-jerk claim that I am a "liar" is shown to be unsubstantiated.
I simply do not have time to chase down all of Imnotandrei's slander and correct him. And I find his knee-jerk and habitual slanderous statements to make it quite impossible to carry on a civilized discourse. I welcome civilized discourse and debate with atheists who are interested in keeping it civilized.
. I have found that certain individuals are prone to repeated unsubstantiated slander and this simply makes attempts at dialogue unfruitful.
DeleteIt is worth noting that Rick treats one statement, corrected, as "repeated unsubstantiated slander". If anyone has been slanderous, by this point, it is Rick, with his repeated accusations to me.
And saying I admitted to "slanderous" is, quite simply, a lie; I admitted I made a *mistake*.
Unlike Rick, who has repeatedly misrepresented his critics, the factual record, and legal records.
And I find his knee-jerk and habitual slanderous statements to make it quite impossible to carry on a civilized discourse.
Your inability to carry on a civilized discourse is not my problem, Rick; I intend to continue pointing out your errors and fallacies when you make them.
Warden
ReplyDeleteWe tend to either gravitate towards truth or away from it. Jeremiah 9.3 outlines how knowing God enlists a proper desire to be valiant for truth and righteousness: "And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me."(NIV)
Oh? "Knowing god" brings about a desire FOR "truth"? You'd have a hard time convincing Judge Jones of that:
One consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID… We disagree.
See also the court decision near the bottom of the page and continuing.
>Oh? "Knowing god" brings about a desire FOR "truth"? You'd have a hard time convincing Judge Jones of that.
DeleteYou cannot convince someone of truth who is closed-minded and nonobjective.
Wait, was this the same Judge Jones who did not even take the time to read details about Intelligent Design peer-reviewed papers in forming his "objective" judgment, but simply listened to the recommendations of secular humanist educators? Oh, um, right.
"Judge Jones did not deny that these articles were peer-reviewed. He simply ignored them. He also ignored the peer-reviewed academic books..."
Jones' ignorance apparently assisted in his decision making process. Jones wrongly treats theologian/philosopher Thomas Aquinas as the ultimate source of the argument to design.
Judge Jones would have known this was not true if he had read the Foundation for Thought and Ethics amicus brief, which pointed out (with documentation)...
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/dover_in_review_pt_2_did_judge001793.html
Even if all the testimonies were perfectly accurate to a T, apparently the Dover case would have been decided against ID simply due to the judge's bias and ignorance.
From the article you *cite*, Rick:
DeleteJones is quoted as saying: "ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He [Haught] traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century...."
[boldface added for emphasis]
The article you cite then goes on to complain "But plato and aristotle!" -- please note the words "At least" there.
So, you're asserting that the Evangelical Lutheran judge in this case was biased *against* religious views?
I notice you simply omit Reynold's pointing out that the people who supposedly "knew god" in the case -- the people who wanted to push intelligent design -- were perjurers; hardly a sign of people who wanted to find truth. They were, in fact, liars. *That* was Reynold's point, and trying to throw up self-contradicting articles in order to cloud the waters of Jones' decision is just further evidence of your unwillingness to admit to your own mistakes, or else your willingness to bend the truth in your own defense. Pick one.
For anyone new to this blog, you may wonder why I decline to address certain individuals in debate. I have found that certain individuals are prone to repeated unsubstantiated slander and this simply makes attempts at dialogue unfruitful.
DeleteAfter a prolonged game of cat and mouse, Imnotandrei finally admitted on September 10 that he had made a false and slanderous claim that an article of mine had been "discredited" without showing any evidence of this whatsoever:
If it is so important to you, I'll say it -- on August 28th, it had not been formally discredited.
Yet, even though he admitted this at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar. Imnotandrei has claimed my article here is a lie because famous atheist apologists today do supposedly utilize logic properly and adequately in their lives and arguments. Though not in my article, he cited Stephen Law as an example. However, Law had displayed a low regard for logic and logical principles in his attitude as a professional philosopher.
In a post of his, Stephen Law had claimed that he was "more impressed" by Dawkins' chapter in the God Delusion outlining his central argument after Law had read it for the second time. Later, however, when repeatedly asked to comment on the logic of the chapter, Law stated,"I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed..."
When I asked Law to present a summary of his favorite argument , his EGC argument, he stated, "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick." In accordance with the bare minimum of logical consequence, the form and wording of an argument are highly important and so we can see that Law does not seem to hold a high regard for very basic logical principles. Thus, Imnotandrei's knee-jerk claim that I am a "liar" is shown to be unsubstantiated.
I simply do not have time to chase down all of Imnotandrei's slander and correct him. And I find his knee-jerk and habitual slanderous statements to make it quite impossible to carry on a civilized discourse. I welcome civilized discourse and debate with atheists who are interested in keeping it civilized.
Rick would rather spam his own blog than risk letting my statements go unanswered; instead, he tries the argument ad hominem (which he used to specifically decry in his blog-ending requests) to discredit them, since he cannot answer them.
Delete