Tag Archives: atheism

Atheist Richard Dawkins says nothing wrong with pedophilia

Fools say in their hearts,
“There is no God.”
Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt;
not one does what is right.
Psalm 53

RichardDawkinsRichard Dawkins, 72, atheist

I’ve always thought atheists are the most arrogant people. Ever.

While agnosticism — uncertainty about the existence of God — is an understandable position to hold, atheism — the conviction that God doesn’t exist — is not only an intellectually arrogant position to hold, it is also logically indefensible.

Allow me to explain.

Agnostics don’t know if God exists or not. They are skeptical about whether God exists for any number of reasons, including the absence or lack of empirical evidence (or so they say) for God’s existence, and perhaps the most problematic of all — how does one explain the existence of evil, if a loving and omnipotent God exists?

Atheism, however, is indefensible on logical and empirical grounds. The atheist credo, “There is no God,” is what philosophers call a universal or Categorical Negative — an assertion that something (in this case, God) absolutely does not exist.

This is akin to saying “There is no such thing as a chartreuse rabbit” (a naturally chartreuse-colored rabbit). Imagine how this assertion can be verified or “proven” to be true.

Take a minute or two to think about it. I’ll wait . . . .

Daffy Duck waitingTo prove that the statement “There is no chartreuse rabbit” or “Chartreuse rabbits don’t exist” would require you to look around and ascertain that you could not find a naturally chartreuse-colored rabbit — not just in the town or city where you live, not just in America, not just on Earth, but in all the millions and millions and millions of planets, stars, moons, and asteroids all across the Universe. For even though you and I had never seen one, nor has anyone in all of human history, how do we know chartreuse rabbits don’t exist somewhere in the unimaginably vast Universe? We can exclude the possibility that chartreuse rabbits don’t exist only if we had seen EVERYTHING in the Universe.

The same goes for the atheist’s Categorical Negative that “There is no God.” Just think how arrogant the atheist must be to presume to know EVERYTHING there is to know in the Universe, so that s/he actually presumes to know that God doesn’t exist!

Notwithstanding all his academic credentials, achievements, and popular acclaim, 72-year-old English evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is just such an arrogant know-it-all. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, in The Brothers Karamazov, wrote: “In a world without God, everything is permitted.” 

It should come as no surprise, then, that Dawkins recently made the news with his astonishing proclamation that there’s nothing wrong with a little “mild pedophilia” — whatever “mild” pedophilia means.

Kirsten Andersen reports for LifeSiteNews, Sept. 12, 2013, that when he was 11 years old, Dawkins had been sexually molested by his art teacher who pulled the boy onto his lap, reached into his shorts, and fondled his genitals. When young Dawkins told his schoolmates, he learned he wasn’t alone – their teacher had abused other boys, too.

But 60 years later, Dawkins can’t bring himself to condemn the teacher’s actions, but instead strains to defend the creep. Dawkins told The Times magazine that abuse like he and his classmates suffered causes “no lasting harm,” and that “mild pedophilia” or “touching up” shouldn’t be judged as harshly as rape or other crimes.

Ever the moral relativist, Dawkins said: “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.”

Victims’ rights groups reacted with outrage to Dawkins’ comments. Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said Dawkins’ remarks were “a terrible slight” to victims of childhood sexual abuse: “Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way. But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects, whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.”

Peter Saunders, founder of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood and himself a victim of abuse, said, “Abuse in all its forms has always been wrong. Evil is evil and we have to challenge it whenever and wherever it occurs.”

Dawkins’ reaction was to double down on his remarks via social media, taking to Twitter to argue that “’Mild touching up’ is bad. Raping 8-year-old wife to death is worse…Quantitative judgment vs. black/white.”

When users reacted with anger to the statement, he pressed on, writing, “Is anyone seriously denying that raping an 8-year-old to death is worse than putting a hand inside a child’s clothes? Are you that ABSOLUTE? Non-consensual sex is always bad. But raping an 8-year-old to death is quantitatively worse than ‘touching inappropriately. Shades of grey.”

This is not the first time Dawkins has said something controversial about pedophilia. In his book The God Delusion, he argued that raising children in the Catholic faith is more abusive than sexual molestation. Referring to the priestly abuse scandals then rocking the Church in Ireland, Dawkins wrote, “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”

What an arrogant, hateful, and confused man!

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

The Sunday Funny Papers.

AN ATHEIST AND A BEAR

bear gifAn atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that evolution had created.

“What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!”, he said to himself. As he was walking along the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. When he turned to see what the cause was, he saw a 7-foot grizzly charging right towards him. He ran as fast as he could. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing, He ran even faster, crying in fear. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pounding and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him. 

At that moment, the Atheist cried out “Oh my God!….” Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving. 

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, “You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don””t exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?” 

The atheist looked directly into the light “It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?” “Very well,” said the voice. 

The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed. 

And then the bear dropped his right paw ….. brought both paws together…bowed his head and spoke: “Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful.”

th_clapping

~Steve~                       H/T          https://www.jokes.com

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

'Harry Potter' Daniel Radcliffe is disgusted with GOP candidates

Daniel Radcliffe is the British actor who played the boy with the round glasses in the wildly popular and lucrative Harry Potter movies. Henceforth I will no longer watch — even for free — any movie or TV with Radcliffe in it.
The UK’s Attitude magazine has a cover story on Radcliffe, but the story isn’t available online. What Radcliffe told Attitude, however, is quoted on Towleroad, which calls itself “a site with homosexual tendencies.”

In his interview with Attitude, Radcliffe begins by stating his support for gay marriage, saying:
“The ultimate reason gay marriage should be legalized everywhere is because, as a kid, you look to your mum and dad and they’re married, then you look at the gay couple who’ve been together for the same amount of time, but because they can’t get married their relationship doesn’t seem the same. Yes, gay marriage is about symbolically blessing a relationship, but the larger issue is about transmitting a fundamental message about equality. Gay people should have equality in law everywhere. If you grow up as a young gay man knowing you don’t have the same opportunities as everyone else, you’re going to feel victimised and massive prejudice towards you.”
From there, Radcliffe bashes religion and proclaims he’s an atheist:
“I’m not religious, I’m an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation. We need sex education in schools. Schools have to talk to kids from a young age about relationships, gay and straight.”
From there, Radcliffe, a Brit, declares that he is “disgusted, amazed, stunned” by GOP candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann and their open hostility to gay rights. But he reserves his special dislike for one Republican in particular:
“…they disgusted me less than candidates like Rick Perry, who made that ridiculous advert wearing ‘the Brokeback jacket’, and I think pretend to be homophobic just to win votes.”
Radcliffe then says although he wishes Obama could come out for gay marriage, he is firmly pro-Obama:
“Of course he’s [Obama] in favour of it [gay marriage], but he has to be careful about saying so. I’d rather have someone like him in the White House than the alternative.”
Radcliffe then concludes the magazine interview by almost apologizing for not being gay, although he can most certainly “see” why a man would want to have anal sex with a good looking man:
“I can quite happily say someone is handsome, good-looking, and I can see why someone would want to f**k them, but I’ve never felt that way about a man myself. There is that moment in your late teens when you ask yourself the question, ‘Am I?’ but I wasn’t…Well, this year I have a talent crush on Ryan Gosling. I think he’s fantastic and…(ahem) you know he’d be nice afterwards. He seems smart. If I was gay, I would go for a smart man.”
Once upon a time, I had loved the Harry Potter movies. No more. I will now dump my Harry Potter DVDs into the trash bin.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Near-Death Experiences Prove We Have a Soul

Mere days before millions across the world celebrated the birth of a person in whom he publicly, stridently, and defiantly refused to believe, author Christopher Hitchens died at the age of 62.
Hitchens, whose 2007 book God Is Not Great made him a major celebrity in his adopted homeland America, died in Houston of pneumonia, a complication of Stage IV esophageal cancer. Hitchens was a cigarette smoker and, by his own admission, a heavy drinker — a lifestyle he euphemistically called “Bohemian.” In an interview with PBS’ Charlie Rose after the cancer diagnosis, asked if he now regretted that “lifestyle,” Hitchens’ startling answer was “no”. He saw it as a “wager” he had made in return for writing well — and, not his words, the attendant fame and fortune.
In a debate in 2010 with former UK Prime Minister (and Catholic convert) Tony Blair over faith and religion, Hitchens likened God to a “celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea.” So adamant was Hitchens about his atheism that he even pre-emptively ruled out his death-bed conversion.
Douglas Wilson, who knew Hitchens, writes in Christianity Today, Dec. 16, 2011:

“In a number of interviews during the course of his cancer treatments, he [Hitchens] discussed the prospect of a ‘death bed’ conversion, and it was clear that he was concerned about the prospect. But, he assured interviewers, if anything like that ever happened, we should all be certain that the cancer or the chemo or something had gotten to his brain. If he confessed faith, then he, the Christopher Hitchens that we all knew, should be counted as already dead. In short, he was preparing a narrative for us, just in case…. This is interesting…because, when he gave these interviews, he was manifestly in his right mind, and the thought had clearly occurred to him that he might not feel in just a few months the way he did at present. The subject came up repeatedly, and was plainly a concern to him.”

As I explained in my post of November 13, 2011, while we can all argue what constitutes as evidence for the existence of God, atheism — the belief that there is no God — is utterly indefensible on logical grounds. For to make such an assertion requires that one has TOTAL knowledge of all there is in the universe. Only then can one confidently proclaim that something — in this case God — does not exist. One would think that an intelligent — some even say brilliant — man such as Hitchens would have thought of that.
There is also something else that Hitchens neglected or refused to consider.
There are reports after reports of the curious phenomenon called Near Death Experiences (NDE), a term coined by Raymond Moody, M.D. and Ph.D. in philosophy and psychology, in his 1975 book Life After Life.
NDE refers to a broad range of personal experiences associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body; feelings of levitation; extreme fear; total serenity, security, or warmth; the experience of absolute dissolution; and the presence of a light. These phenomena are usually reported after an individual has been pronounced clinically dead or otherwise very close to death, hence the term near-death experience.
Many NDEs include a feeling of leaving the body. The individual can see his/her body — in a hospital bed or on the surgery table — as well as see and hear what people in the room are doing or saying. Later, upon “waking up,” the Near Death Experiencer (NDEr) is able to verify that what s/he had heard and seen were true.
According to a Gallup poll, approximately eight million Americans claim to have had a near-death experience.
After over 30 years of research, scientists have concluded that NDEs cannot be explained by current science. On Sept. 2–4, 2011, the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS) — founded in 1981 to promote responsible, multi-disciplinary exploration of NDEs — organized a conference in Durham, N.C., for NDE researchers to present their findings.
Bruce Greyson, M.D. and director of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, maintains that NDEs are an indication that the mind is independent of the brain because impaired brain functions would be expected during the clinical situation that the NDErs underwent, but his research found no corresponding impairment of mental functions in NDErs. He explains:

“In most cases, people’s mental functioning is better in the NDE than [it] is during our normal waking life. Their thinking is faster, is clearer, is more logical, they have more control over their chain of thought, their senses are more acute, their memories are more vivid. If you ask somebody about their near-death experience that happened 15 years ago, they tell it as if it happened yesterday. If you ask them [about] other experiences from their life at the same time, they are very fuzzy memories, if they have any at all. […] When you think that these experiences, which are characterized by enhanced thought processes [that] take place when the brain is not functioning well or sometimes not functioning at all since it is in cardiac arrest or deep anesthesia—times when brain science would tell us that you shouldn’t be able to think or perceive or form memories—it becomes quite clear that we can’t explain this thing on the basis of brain physiology.”

Another scientist at the conference, neurosurgeon Eben Alexander, gave personal testimony to Dr. Greyson’s conclusion.
In 2008, Dr. Alexander contracted acute bacterial meningitis, which damages the neocortex, and went into a coma, spending six days on a ventilator. But he had a NDE during his coma in which he had vivid experiences involving multiple senses, such as vision, hearing, and smell. For days after the coma, Alexander struggled to speak and recall memories before the coma. No one with this kind of severe brain damage is expected to fully recover, but Alexander did. He asks:

“My brain right now—I think it recovered pretty well—could not do anything close to what my brain was doing [during my NDE]. How does a dying brain end up getting far, far more powerful and able to handle these tremendous loads of information instantaneously and put it altogether?”

See also the NDE account of a Chicago medical doctor who clinically died during an emergency procedure. Click here.
For centuries, philosophers have debated whether the human mind is separate from body. The phenomenon of Near Death Experiences not only is empirical evidence of that separation, NDEs also point to the existence of the soul. How else can a person who is clinically dead — whose brain has ceased to function — be able to see and hear?
Perhaps what we call “mind” is just another word for “soul.”
Toward the end of his life, Christopher Hitchens told an interviewer who questioned him about his atheism: “No evidence or argument has yet been presented which would change my mind. But I like surprises.”
I betcha Hitchens had the surprise of his life….

See also my post on medical doctor Duncan MacDougall’s experiment suggesting that our soul weighs 21 grams.

UPDATE (Nov. 27, 2014):

Click here for the fascinating case, reported by cardiac surgeon Lloyd W. Rudy (1934-2012), of a patient declared dead for at least 20 minutes who returned to life and accurately described events that took place in the operating room which he could not have seen because his eyes had been taped shut to protect his corneas during the operation.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Creation and Creator

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg&feature=player_embedded]
“Can we prove that God exists? Yes, we can. We can reason out this truth….
The first way is by considering motion in the world. Where there is motion, there is a mover, and ultimately a first mover, itself unmoved. This is God.
The second way is by considering the chains of effecting causes that exist in the world. Things here are produced by their causes; these causes in turn were produced by their causes, and so on. Ultimately, there must be a first cause which is itself uncaused. This is God.
The third way is by considering the contingency of things in the world. Contingent things do not have to exist; they are non-necessary; they come into existence, and undergo change, and pass away. Now, contingent things demand as their ultimate explanation a noncontingent being, a necessary being. This is God.
The fourth way is by considering the scale of perfection manifest in the world. Things are more or less good…. Now, where there is good and better and still better, there must at last be a best which is the source and measure of goodness all along the line…. In a word, where there are degrees of perfection, there must ultimately be absolute perfection. This is God.
The fifth way is by considering the order and government seen in this world. Things act in a definite way and were manifestly designed to act so…they are governed in their activities. Thus there are design and government in the world. Hence there are ultimately a first designer and first governor. And since both design and government involve intelligence, there must be governor and designer who is the first and absolute intelligence. This is God.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Summa Theologica
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0