Re: If Evolution is True, No Adam and Eve Meme

I do not accept evolution as fact. So, next.

If I accepted evolution as fact, for the sake of your idiotic argument, that very acceptance does not necessitate a rejection of an "Adam" and "Eve". In fact this meme recalled to memory a documentary I heard of years ago and it is conveniently on Youtube. Try again Pastor Athiest.

Re: Pastor Who Gave Up Religion For A Year To Test His Faith Says He Might Not Go Back

Pastor Who Gave Up Religion For A Year To Test His Faith Says He Might Not Go Back

This article linked above was just posted in the Google+ Atheism group I joined up with to see what kind of silly memes and posts these guys post. This was one of them. It's a bit annoying to me that they think this might be some kind of evidence that God doesn't exist. Christians of all stripes lose their faith all the time (but many atheists come to faith all the time as well). Pastors and priests lose their faith all the time (but also many atheists become Christians and become leaders as well). All these cases neither prove God exists nor disprove him. All it proves is that it is  part of the human experience to seek out an ideal which satisfies their need to answer their life's questions. I being a Catholic only have this to say about this man, he wasn't Catholic and so wasn't in the original form of Christianity anyway, and furthermore, he leaving Adventism and belief could only prove (if he remains that way til death) that he wasn't predestined for salvation. I'd advise praying for him but he also has free will and if he is not willing he will not budge. God will use Mr. Bell in one way or another, for his glory. 

Re: Prophetcast: Episode 60 (On Pedophilia and the Catholic Church)

Above you will find an amazing apology from one of the "hosts" of Prophetcast, an atheist show on Atheist Analysis. "A little" heated is a bit of an understatement. In the last 10-15 minutes or so, he was speechless, befuddled, and could barely string a sentence together, until he basically cut the program short because he about had it. What could possibly get him to react this way? A simple correction and attention to detail. I was expecting these guys would be interested in truth and science and the like. But apparently that all goes by the wayside when they are called out on their erroneous understanding of terms that they use. Everyone makes mistakes, but they continued to resist and reject correction and gave up. How can anyone accept such a spectacle? The arrogance astounds me. 

Link to Broadcast on Youtube

Streamed live on Dec 14, 2014Prophetcast strives to bring an open forum to discuss religion, atheism, secular humanism and the politics and current events surrounding them. Having regular guests join the show and constant new ones, Prophetcast is always open to new ideas for topics and invites anyone as future guests!

What happened was these guys were responding to news that a Protestant pastor stated that he thinks gays should be stoned to death and are all pedophiles. Instead of refuting such an obviously false statement, they instead used it as an opportunity to attack the Catholic Church by saying that when they think of pedophiles they think of Catholic priests. That's when I commented on the Atheist Analysis chat that they should read the 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY) study on the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church (read it here) from 1950-2002.

1. The greatest percentage of cases were cases of post-pubescent boys being abused. 
2. Pedophilia is perpetration towards pre-pubescent children, not post-pubescent children. (Source: Forensic Psychology, p. 127) As such, they could not refer to the crisis as simply a "pedophilia scandal". When corrected, the hosts clearly could not understand, either by admission or perhaps intellectual capacity, that there is a difference. 
3. Pedophilia is an issue of power and dominance and so does not have a preference between boys or girls. 
4. Victimization for pedophiles has more to do with availability and access to victims, in which case was mostly boys (altar boys, all boy schools). 
5. So what do we call it when victimization involves post-pubescent boys (majority of cases). I made the simple parallel. What would you call an adult male who victimizes a post-pubescent and yet under the age of consent female? You can say it is "predatory heterosexual behavior". Who could argue with that description? 
6. Replace the female with a post-pubescent male and what behavior is that? You can say it is "predatory homosexual behavior", which is exactly what I called it in the chat. 

Now these hosts, instead of calmly assimilating the data, decided to mock it, oppose it, and engage in the most amount of logical fallacies in the shortest amount of time that I've heard in a while. C'mon guys...

I think for this reason alone that these guys have no business doing a show like this. As I suspected, their show description is a sham, and the only real "bigots" are these two idiots. Did I show hate at all for any group? Not at all. If anyone, these two did against believers and Catholics.

big·ot

 noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Re: Heretical Minds SE01 EP06: Trauma

Description

Streamed live on Dec 18, 2014

This week Joseph and Chris will dive into the physical and mental once again. Trauma and its many variations, the danger of its short and long term implication, signs to look for, and much much more will be covered. Brain chemistry changes, personality shifts, amazing survival stories, and of course some dry nerd humor because Chris simply cannot resist the temptation sometimes...

This is the newest series to be premiering on the Atheist Analysis Network and will be concentrating on psychological phenomena and their many biological implications, new or cutting edge scientific developments, and the political consequences of new scientific, psychological, and engineering discoveries. Joseph brings years of expertise as a practicing psychology major and former devotee of the church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints while Chris is a Mechanical Engineering entrepreneur and life long non believer.

Response

1. Find a real expert, either having academic credentials or functional expertise in the field.
2. Know your audience and purpose.
3. Be clear in the presentation.

Re: Atheist Analysis S03 E21: The Science behind Marijuana, Weed Recipes, and Greydon Square

Link

1. God: aliquid, quo nihil majus cogitari posit (that than which nothing greater can be conceived). I'm not a proponent of the ontological argument btw. It's a simple definition, however. 
2. An atheist acting morally, even morally congruous to Christian principles doesn't mean God does not exist. Atheists can have moral values, I think the real issue is what obligation does one have to act morally? On what basis can those with power in society dictate what those without power can and cannot do? On what basis can you even evaluate that? I'm not sure if social contract is good enough, in the absence of pre-existing Judeo-Christian moral principles. 
3. Tattoos? Foundation by which we will teach.... Sounds like a religion is forming... to hearken back to the John Moesman interview. 

So, the show seems to be a sham. LOL. They invite Q and A, but havent addressed any of my comments. 

Bill Cosby - Stop Perpetuating the Sterotypes

A bit off the atheism topic. But I've been sharing some of my views as of late regarding the fallacies of our two party political system. I've been watching some videos lately regarding Bill Cosby. Say or believe what you will about his scandal, he has excellent points about what I would call the entitlement attitudes of recent generations. I hope this video gets shared far and wide.

The Watchmaker Argument

The Watchmaker Argument (William Paley)

1) Complexity implies a designer.
2) The universe is highly complex.
3) Therefore, the universe has a Designer.
4) God is a Being who is able to design a universe.
5) Therefore, God does exist.

Kalam Argument

Kalam Argument (William Lane Craig)

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2) The universe began to exist.

You cannot have an infinite regress of causes. The concept of infinity is a mathematical concept that does not and cannot exist in reality since it would lead to absurdities. See Hilbert’s Hotel.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

Ontological Argument for God

Ontological argument (St. Anselm)

Argument 1, (Laurence Gonzaga, 04/20/2008)

1) God is, by definition, the “greatest” (that than which nothing greater is possible).
2) The notion of the “greatest” exists in the mind.
3) The “greatest” may exist in reality.
4) If the “greatest” only existed in the mind, and the “greatest”may have existed in reality, then the “greatest” [in reality] might have been greater than the “greatest” [in the mind].
5) The “greatest” may be greater than it is.
6) Therefore, the “greatest” is something that something greater is possible.
7) This is not possible, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).
8) Therefore, the “greatest” (God) exists in both the mind and in reality.

Argument 1, variation (Laurence Gonzaga, 03/14/2009)

1) There is an understanding in the “believer” and the “unbeliever” of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, which can be summarized as “the greatest”.
2) The greatest can exist in the understanding alone, or in the understanding and reality.
3) Things that exist in reality, even those things which existed in the past, are greater than things which exist in the understanding alone.
4) If the greatest does not exist in reality, then there exists an absurdity (reductio ad absurdum ), since any object that exists in reality, even those which existed in the past, would be greater than “the greatest”, which exists in the understanding alone. So, “the greatest” would not really be the greatest.
5) Therefore, “the greatest” must exist in reality. The greatest, is He who we call God.

Argument 2

1) God is defined as the “greatest” (aliquid, quo nihil majus cogitari posit, that than which nothing greater can be conceived).
2) It is greater to be a necessary being than not.
3) God must be necessary.
4) God necessarily exists.

Re: Godless Offering Ep 10 Were Ex Christians Ever Really True Christians

Link

This was an excellent presentation from an old friend since my Xanga apologetics days, Jeremiah Bannister. It is a great apologetic for why a monotheist Christian should NOT be a Protestant. I have to say, however, it is not a case against being a Catholic. In this presentation Jeremiah lumps Catholicism in the mix here and there, but I think it may do a disservice to the viewer as he very well knows that the very reason why he became a Catholic in the first place is that Protestantism does not have that mechanism by which one can determine or know for sure what is sound doctrine or at the very least, what must be believed or done for salvation.

The short answer from Catholic theology is: A person can become a Christian and leave Christianity. The person is free and Catholicism does not teach eternal security or the perseverance of the Saints. If Jeremiah believes he was a Christian then he was as far as anyone can tell. If he left, he was no less a Christian.

It would require a further step on the Catholic level to argue that that mechanism that Catholicism posits as the answer to that doctrinal division and to get that certitude for what is to be believed or done, the papacy, and then say that that answer becomes meaningless since there are also divisions within the Catholic fold as well, not to mention popes teaching strange doctrines as well albeit non-infallibly, but still gives the orthodox Catholic cause for pause. Sorry for the run on, but that's how I want it to be read.

You would have to watch the full program where I actually intervene with one of my questions. Unfortunately, the best part of his answer was given off air in a private chat on Google Hangouts.

Some reactions:

1. 49:33 - This is an excellent question. The problem of evil haunts us again. I will say that it is easier giving the philosophical response when we don't have a detailed scenario in mind. This scenario is a particularly potent one. I would first say, God's ways are not our ways and we can't possibly understand his reasons or his methods at times. I realize that is not satisfactory to the inquiring mind, but it is what we have with what Christians believe. Second, the problem of evil does not disprove God, it could only disprove that he is either all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-good, or all three. 
2. 52:48 - This was my question. Since this broadcast I remembered in more detail that last phone call I had with Jeremiah. He was actually already back from sedevacantism. However, if I recall his family was having a difficult time making it to the local Eastern Catholic church. In any case the question I was really getting to was he and his family have been on quite an ideological and theological journey through very many camps. I'm just wondering if this will be home for the Bannisters. I appreciate that he has the intellectual honesty to admit that he could not dogmatically say that he could not be persuaded otherwise ever. 

My overall reaction is this: I think it is wonderful to question. I think that's the beauty of trying to find the answer to this question. We may never feel absolutely secure in this life (even if it may be all we have) that we have reached the answer. I just hope that everyone who holds such cherished beliefs, does so passionately and sincerely and is willing to discuss the reasons for his or her faith, God, gods, goddesses, or the absence thereof. 

Laurence Gonzaga

12.13.14

Re: REALITY THUMPER.COM

Link

I decided to visit Reality Thumper because I met these gentlemen just a few weeks ago. I was going to a Starbucks in my old neighborhood after work to meet up with an old friend. After chatting for an hour or so we decided to head over next door for Chinese food. As we walked out I heard my name called out. I was approached by a tall muscular figure and I was not ready to die yet, but realized it was a familiar and most importantly friendly face. He was sitting with his buddy and so after introduction between the strangers I asked what they were up to. They said they were podcasting. On what topic I asked, "On atheism". Well, I said, "I've given talks on that subject recently". Of course I am not an atheist so some of the sarcastic remarks started being thrown. I know how these type of events begin and I know better. So I focused on my old friend. While my friend began to engage the more "lively" of the atheists, I exchanged numerous points of issue that were raised. I think that would have been a great podcast to offer the public, the unscripted and unprepared off the cuff debate between two men with diametrically opposed ideas. An hour went by with two debates going on side by side. I would say my exchange was a bit more Socratic and my counterpart's debate sounded to be more in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics. We exchanged well wishes and promised to get back in touch to discuss the issues. They sounded like they would want me to be part of a future podcast. Not so sure about that one. I know a planned gang-atheistic-rape when I see one.

Anyway, so here I am. I texted my friend on where I can find their site. He responded, apologized for it's freshman quality, but who cares? I wanted to hear the content. I listened to it and it was rather entertaining. I must say these guys have a good chemistry and would do well to have a radio broadcast. If I knew I was going to be creating a response website to atheistic presentations, I would have taken notes. I will make the following reactions, however:

1. Questioning is great. I wish more religious folks would grow up knowing what the best arguments against their faith are so they aren't such pansies when they are challenged. Questioning in itself is not proof God does not exist. Faith is a gift, and maybe, just maybe, you're not predestined by God anyway!
2. Religion is not about not letting people be who they are naturally. That's the point! If God is real, and Christianity is true, and Catholicism is the correct version of it, and her teaching is that a man and man or a woman and woman is not morally permissible, and is thus "un-natural", that is to say, not according to nature as God intended, then it should continue to teach it. I get it, on a human level it feels like we are taking away personal freedom. But again, what is freedom? It is not the absence of restraint, it is the presence of the ability to act according to what one ought to do. 
3. Granted, many Christians have a simple faith and so they don't necessarily have the desire or the capacity to gain the tools needed to be able to defend their belief. But, I would say that the reason why people can get sensitive when an atheist mocks or belittles the Christian is not necessity because their faith is so weak, but could be perhaps the total opposite. I will give the example of when someone is making fun of your family or someone else that you care about dearly. Do you just roll with the punches or do you just want to punch that guy in the cheek, turn it for him so you can then proceed to punch the other cheek (Biblical, check it)? No. God is my family, and excuse me if I get emotional or get offended. I for one, try not to let it get to me. If I were an atheist, I probably would be the asshole type too. 

More responses to come. 

May Almighty Dawkins Bless your Day!

Laurence Gonzaga

12.13.14