Re: There Is No God by Penn Jillette

Whenever I have the free time, I read a chapter from The Portable Atheist, edited by Christopher Hitchens. Today I read a very short piece written by magician Penn Jillette. It is chapter 40 in this volume, spans about a page and a half, and can also be read on the NPR site here. Jillette's perspective can be summarized as:

"So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power... So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something."

I have to say that I am glad I read this perspective. It's actually refreshing. If I may summarize the perspective for my understanding and I am open to correction if I am mistaken... I gather that Mr. Jillette is saying, let's all just start off with no belief, and then ask what evidence exists to believe there is a being that many call "God". I am actually compelled to sympathize with this approach. But then I started to think about it. The idea that we only believe in things which can be proven through the empirical sciences is a presupposition of empiricism. One of the ideas in natural philosophy is that we have first principles which are not proven, and cannot be proven. I presuppose that there are beings or realities which may exist beyond what can be empirically demonstrated or proven. Then I turn to some philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and then I look to history and sacred theology to fill in the rest of the picture.

Thank you Mr. Jillette, for presenting such a practical perspective pro-atheism. Unfortunately, it's not a good enough case for someone who already believes. 

Laurence Gonzaga

10.18.15

Re: Theodicy, God and Suffering - A debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bart Ehrman

I didnt watch the first part of the debate because I know where each is coming from already. I was most interested in the cross examination and the Q & A portion. The two didn't disappoint. I found some inconsistencies in both positions. For Bart he made a lot of effort to show that we don't know what happens after we die, and yet he claims nothing happens when we die and nothing is not something. But he is saying he knows nothing happens after we die. At this point I think it was a clash of philosophical terms. D'Souza on the other hand made a few references to adultery as his choice of bad things people do and we know now, it was a bad thing which he did do. I suppose that is not a flaw in his argument though, although perhaps the credibility of the debater is now in question.

An Agnostic Takes an Atheist to School

 
LINK

I just randomly happened upon this video. I found it to be amusing and sad for the atheist.

Why talk about atheism? (July 7, 2015)

Re: Why I Hate the Phrase: “True Christians Don’t Do That!”

Link to the Article

I actually liked this article. The author raises a good point. Every brand of Christian thinks they are right and others are wrong in some way or another. That's fine. That doesn't mean there is no correct way. The authenticity of one's adherence to the teachings of Christ will be determined at the right time. It won't be me, nor will it be this author. The author writes, "There is no way to determine which denomination is following the bible the correct way. There is no one correct way to follow Christ. If there was 40,000+ different denominations wouldn’t exist." That is a presumption. There was one group once upon a time, then there were two and then more. That was because groups started to degrade the original teaching of one church. The Church, made up of fallible and broken individuals can make mistakes and they have at times. That fact does not negate that God exists and that he established a church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Laurence Gonzaga
6.16.15

Re: Cursed are the Meek, for They Dream of Being Enslaved

Link to Article

1. You can't just take one passage to make your point. Obviously, not all Christians have been, are, and will be, meek. But it would be convenient to make the author's point that Christians are only made up of gullible ignoramuses. 
2. The idea that a bunch of men with power came together and cooked up the Jesus story and then managing to impose that on an entire group of people to systematically enslave their minds is rather unlikely. I'm not sure how you could even begin to prove such a theory other than simply asserting it as fact.
3. The author writes, "They believe those obviously made-up fairy tales because when they were very young they were taught not how to think but what to think, and were warned on pain of unimaginable eternal torment never to doubt what they were taught." If it were that obvious then how does one explain how Christians become atheists. IQ doesn't magically change because a person get's butt hurt and now has a philosophical axe to grind against religion. Atheists also become Christians or religionists, so how does the author explain that? Maybe they lose IQ points, as a result of PTSD perhaps. 
4. This article was nice poetry. Perfect for all atheist conspiracy theorists. 

Laurence Gonzaga

6.16.15

Re: God Isn’t Real but the Devil Is: Childhood’s End and Five Years of Hell

Article

This was a good piece to read. Abuse is nothing to ignore. Anyone who suspects abuse should address it to the proper people and/or authorities. Of course, use your best judgement. The only thing I can criticize about an article such as this is that it is used as a way of arguing against the existence of God. What happened to this young girl and now woman was terrible and the one responsible needs to answer for his crimes. However this:

I now know that God did not “let” this happen to me because God does not exist. No God would allow something like that to happen to a child.

... is a leap in logic. Tragedies do not disprove the existence of God. It may disprove certain ideas of God, but could not in itself disprove his existence.

Laurence Gonzaga
6.16.15