Extremists are the real threat

The point began with a claim by Pitts that the problem is extremists. Almost immediately those holding to a naturalistic philosophy of life began to make a claim that it was the theists who were the "extremists." I found that ironic when it was naturalistic philosophy that was responsible for more deaths in the last one century than ALL other ideologies COMBINED in ALL of history. Who are the extremists?

The discussion of the naturalistic philosophy digressed as it revealed how utterly incoherent it is as some tried to philosophically debate that naturalism was not philosophy but science (go figure that one out!). It became more confusing as some wanted to debate whether Micheal Ruse, Phd in the Phil of Biology and atheist, is not qualified to recognize that modern science (like Dawkins) have went beyond the limits of science and entered the field of philosophy. One thing led to another to the point of revealing the "ridiculous game" that gets played under the guise of "science," all because naturalism is not science at all!

All of this reveals in the end who are the "extremists." One's who demand we accept a view, even if if is incoherent and can not answer the questions (I gave a few and never got one viable answer). Talk about extreme, it is even more amazing that this naturalistic philosophy has set up state-run structures that take our tax dollars to support their efforts and worship centers as their philosophy could never stand on its own. Brain washing is a scary thing. . . ask a few million Germans from the 1930-40s!

May 29, 2011 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

Good to see you have come to the moral conclusions that it would be good to care for weak and less fortunate human beings. Gosh- there have been many in this discussion that have taken the naturalistic philosophical position for survival of the fittest- which was the basis that fueled the Gulags and the Holocaust. Very pleased to see you would stand against such extremists.

Also good to see you are pro-life instead of those who think that we should really live out "survival of the fittest" whereby we kill innocent children. At least you are being consistent compared to the many who have truly entered into something so irrational, that their arguments do not even align with reality.

I wish people would at least be consistent- either human life is to be protected simply because it has transcendent value as human life; or we believe that the strong should survive as espoused by the various extremist Eugenics movement held by extremists like Margret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. etc.

May 29, 2011 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

EVERYTHING you are talking about IS philosophy. But that is the point- philosophy and science are two different things.

So here. . . you can easily clear it up for me. Seriously. Use the scientific method and show me how life came from non-life, or something came from nothing, or how you can cross an actual infinity, or how you determine what is moral. Maybe you will sway my view. I will wait to see it . . (hmmm. . .waiting with that cute tune from Jeopardy!) Let me save you time- The scientific method and evidence will not answer those things!

But this is exactly the point. Naturalism is NOT science- it is a philosophy with its presuppositions on origins, destiny, and its map based in a closed system. Dawkins is making a philosophical argument. That is not my opinion, it is a fact acknowledged by the world of scholars.

Some of you are absolutely amazing. In contrast to Ruse (one of your own atheists), Tolkien, Lewis, Flew, and thousands of other thinkers; you have arrived at something that ALL of us have missed. Wow. So, not to embarrass myself any further, I will hold off any more arguments until you can show me the scientific evidence and conclusions that will sway me. Seriously- the ball is in your court. I want to know what is true.

Good grief. . .I am not going to argue about Ruse being a biologist. Ruse is ten levels deeper than the everyday biologist- as he is a scholar in BOTH philosophy AND the sciences. Realize, I am just suggesting since he is an atheist and one of your own, perhaps you should convince him that he has made a terrible mistake in acknowledging that modern science has been commandeered by philosophical naturalism.

While you are at it with Ruse, you may want to argue with Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, Tolkien, Lewis (i.e. Pilgrim's Regress, The Abolition of Man, Mere Christianity, etc), A. McGrath, and Anthony Flew (who USED to debate for atheism until he also saw it as a failure!). I DO REALIZE that just because many of these men gave us the foundations for science while they were all theists, does not make the theistic worldview true. I am just suggesting that you study their writings and ideas instead of arguing with this not-so-bright-guy who only has 12 years of post secondary education and will not be known in history like those men.

Since naturalism is such an obviously superior intellectual philosophical system- it should not be hard to get them to abandon (or in history here show them as intellectual nincompoops) their theistic systems and move back to atheism/naturalism.

What do I know. . . I am not that bright as I am totally confused by your arguments.

May 28, 2011 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

Liberty- Help me here- where is the experiment that demonstrates the beginning premise of the universe? Where is the experiment that demonstrates how life came from non-life? Where is the experiment that demonstrates how something came from nothing? Where is the experiment that shows how "Reason" came about by evolution?

What you are saying here is like someone telling me, with words, that words have no meaning. Read all the posts here. You ARE making a philosophical argument- and that is the point. Nothing you have given is science. Naturalism is a philosophy- NOT science! Dawkins, as his OWN atheistic comrade Michael Ruse admits, is NOT giving a science argument!!

I give! You go ahead and argue with Ruse, British world renown atheistic biologist, who agrees that modern science has went far beyond its limits. Like my name here suggests, I am just not bright enough to figure out how your philosophical arguments magically become scientific experiments because you demand they do.

May 28, 2011 at 7:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

Oh my gosh- that is MY point. Dawkins tries to equate philosophy with science. And he is not good at a philosophical argument.

May 27, 2011 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

So cait- if I get you right- the reason you will stop and help a child who was been hit on her bike by a car is because it is good for the species? You know- I never realized that most people do think that- "Wow, I need to call 911 because that human being needs to be rescued for the sake of our species." Now I get it- always wondered what moved the heart of true heroes and selfless parents- "I need to risk my own life for the sake of prospering the species."

It is finally getting clearer- that is exactly what Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler held to- "to prosper the species!" They are the heroes. Ok. . . man I was confused. Nitzsche was right all the time!

Can't wait to teach on what a hero really is: Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler. . . wow. A BUNCH of us missed that one (probably because we are so "extreme" in our "religious" views!) Thanks for helping me clarify the greatness of a naturalistic philosophy of life.

May 27, 2011 at 9:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

Already did. Again, this is why I can appreciate atheistic biologist Michael Ruse who is honest enough to admit that modern science has went beyond its limits. Naturalism is a philosophy (best handled by philosophers) and not science. Dawkins is just not a good philosopher.

May 27, 2011 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

Exactly. . . and Tolkien was an atheist, as was Flew and thousands of others. That is the point! There is a reason that many honest thinking people abandon the incoherence and blind faith demanded of by atheistic/naturalism.

May 27, 2011 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

Oh my. . . . I thought I was confused. . .

I suggest you read Darwin. "Survival of the fittest" is a theory and *opposite* of caring for humanity. It certainly is not the basis for why we think it is moral to care for people.

So- if someone beats up your child, or someone preys on another race as inferior you are celebrating "survival of the fittest." The good news is I am sure you do not live according your claim.

Interesting how you actually *live* according to my view then deny the basis for my view. But if I lived out your view accepting your basis you would call me an "extremist!" At least Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler had the integrity to live out their belief of survival of the fittest.

People- good grief. . .Tolkien, Lewis, and Flew were *all* atheists *before* being convinced by the evidence!!! That is the *point*! Brilliant thinking men who saw the failure and incoherence of the atheistic/naturalistic view.

May 27, 2011 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Extremists are the real threat

I did not say that law is "faith based." I said we legislate morality. There is a reason we think it is "good" to stop at a stop sign. We think it is a moral good. So we pass laws that we think are good (a moral statement). The bigger question is where does that morality come from as the basis? I hope it is something outside of our finite self definitions.

ALL people live by "faith." You do it everyday- even as you are typing your replies here. Oops you just used faith again when you took a breath (you did not see the oxygen did you?). You trust by faith that gravity works when you go up in a plane. How do you know? By faith. You trust/have-faith that the pilot uses good evidences/gauges when making decisions. And EVERYONE arrives at their final conclusion as to the self existent beginning point of the universe by looking at the evidences and trusting by faith. EVERYONE does that by faith. The real question is: Does your conclusion meet the criteria/evidences? I do not think the naturalist has a good argument- that is why I walked away from it. (Also why people like Tolkien, Lewis, Anthony Flew and masses of others have rejected their atheism/naturalist views- they are not where the evidence leads!)

Life is arbitrary. Matter = life. Wedding, birth of a child, a concentration camp, or a morgue = no difference for you? I guess when the people you love are gone all you will need is their dirty diapers and it won't be any different?? Hmm? Gosh- I sure hope my parents loved ME more than what I left behind in the dirty diapers. (You really think THAT is what they loved and not ME? I really need to call them. . . .)

Secular humanism and modern scientific naturalism VERY MUCH holds to a "closed system." That is the center of their system. Again- not even a point of argument.

One question: Why should we care about "the good of humanity?"

May 27, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )