For a little while i have been reading the 'Atheist in a mini van' blog, it seems that due to her blog some unpleasantness befell her children when they went camping. While there are no details the commenters seem to assume that some one took information about the trip to work out where they would be and then attacked them about the mom's blog.
It is things like this that really wreck my faith in humanity, there can never be a good reason for taking out your issues with some one on there kids. PZ Meyers has recently received a number of threats against himself and his family because of his wish to destroy a cracker, surely no-one can think that this is an acceptable way to behave in anyones (good) book.
I don't want to make this about religion, I actually don't care about the motivations of people who are so broken that they feel that this sort of behaviour is not only acceptable but positively laudable. Have these people forgotten the basic rules of citizenship and society, do they not understand that, regardless of peoples beliefs or lack of them, threatening people or there loved ones with violence is no way to convince people of the rightness of their arguments and more to the point should result in punishment.
Unfortunately my writing skills are not up to really saying how I feel so I guess this is about as far as I go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Logic Lad, you remember me the one you talked with around late may and early june. I apologize that i didn't respond to your last question until now. If you are still interested, I finally took the time to.
http://wwwcreatedrational.blogspot.com/2008/05/ten-so-called-dangers-of-theistic.html
Hi Logic Lad
I've enjoyed the conversation at Trish's blog. I see that you are in the U.K. My wife was born in Ash Vale, a suburb of London. She is still a British citizen.
Here is the url for the lecture on the transmission of the O.T and N.T. scriptures. It is only about 35 minutes, so it is basically an overview, but he packs a lot into a short period of time.
See you at AC and Fishw/Trish.
Craig B.
http://urclearning.org/2009/03/02/belgic-confession-articles-3-5-is-the-bible-trustworhty/
Wow, I really must get back to posting on this thing at some point thanks for the link Strange, see you on the web
That sucks. Honestly, though, here's the deal:
If the people who attacked this family are "Christian" or not, they'll have to answer to God for what they've done.
It's not surprising to hear, though should be, you talk about a need for justice, when the atheist worldview has no objective standard for it.
From what I recall in school, Darwinism is all about "survival of the fittest," and in the wild it's usually the young/infirm that get taken by predators.
Not to be grim, but isn't that more fitting with atheism?
IMO, your need for justice in this issue points to the fact that you've been created in God's image, as is recorded in Genesis 1:27-29 or so. And yes, I know: you deny the veracity of the Bible.
How do you, though, avoid the Hitler-esque and Nietzche-esque ethical framework of "will to power"? Or: do you?
Just curious. It's a fascination of mine: how non-Christian worldviews can account for ethical norms.
Have a good day, and rest assured: in God's universe (the only one there is), justice is always served ultimately.
You are not searching for reason. you are searching for ways rationalize your prejudices. It's senlsess to say that I can't debate the rational warrant for belief before I proved the existence of God. If you know anything about logic you would know that is idiotic.
that's like saying "you can't make an argument until it's proved." if you can't make an argument until you prove it you can never make it. you have to make the arguemnt before you can prove it.
God is not given in sense data. he has to be believed in through argument and specualtion not proof. it's sneless to talk about proving the existence of God. If I can prove that's warantee by reason why not bleieve? If it's not warranted it cant' be stupid. do not you understand how think? i don't think you know how to think.
all sorts of things in science have been accepted as warranted on the theoretical level before they were proved to exist:
string theory
dark matter
neutrinos
two of those have not yet been proved, but no scientist talks aout "you can't believe dark matter is valid until we prove it exists."
Now are not exactly analogous to belief in God. God is not a scientific hypothesis. that's just all the more reason why you accept a lower bar, such as warrant rather than proof.
I think you are looking for an excuse to get out of debating me. this is just proves the irrational stupidity of atheism. Cowardly ignorance.
MetaCrock
Glad you found my blog, don't use it much.
I don't need an excuse to get out of debating you, if i wanted to i would just stop trying to communicate, i have tried multiple times to log onto your site but the dumb arse 'are you a robot' test is so hard to read I keep getting it wrong and it will only give me a couple of attempts a day.
If my last message was a bit abrupt I apologies, I don’t have a lot of time to compose these things however you move from reasonable diatribe to personal insults makes me seriously doubt how much a debate would gain. I am trying to stay reasonable here but you seem to have decided to go highly belligerent, I am neither ignorant nor cowardly and as you know nothing about me you have no place to make such accusations. If you don’t like the arguments I use then actually prove me wrong, ad hominem is not the way to do that
I accept that my statement about belief in the absence of evidence was too broad, you raise some interesting points about edge of science thinking that may be interesting to get into.
I will only directly address one point you make in you post
‘If I can prove that's warantee by reason why not bleieve? If it's not warranted it cant' be stupid’
This pair on sentences makes no sense. I agree completely with the first sentence, if I can prove something exists then I believe in it. However I have no clue what the second sentence has to do with the first statement.
Ok if you still want to debate you still need to define what you mean by god, is it one of the three things i suggested or something else. You need to define it so that we have something approaching a start point. As i am having difficulty logging onto your site you are more than welcome to post here if you prefer and the copy all the post back to your own site. I will start a thread to continue this conversation.
I apologized in the section where it says chatting with Metacrock.
that is a sore subject because I find atheist using circular reasoning all the time. they made such a big deal out of the warrant thing like they have never heard of it. when I quoted Toulmin they acted like I'm made him up.
What we really need to do first is get it straight about the nature of logic and proof. I think atheist are pretty much not well erad they create their own forms of scholarship that are tailored to support their ideology.
Needless to say Evangelicals do that too.
Post a Comment