Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Smurf snurf | Main | More on blogs and the gag law »

Thursday, October 20, 2005

I submit myself, for your judgment

A small battle has been raging in the comments section of some of my posts, between myself and a reader who has taken passionate exception, to my atheism.  I am ashamed to admit that I have allowed myself to get sucked into this pointless argument, in an effort to defend myself against his unjustified accusations.  I will not, any longer.

Instead, I would like to challenge all of my readers to examine my words and my acitons, and judge me for yourselves.  If any of you who are faithful, can point out any instance when my words or actions have not strictly adhered to the tenets of right and wrong, or any examples where my sense of morality can be called into question, I urge you to do so.  For I am not afraid to have my words judged by those who disagree with my godlessness.  But I will not respond to personal attacks against my morality and character, without examples of proof to back them up.  I am confident that I have never given any.

I have staunch respect for the Church, and for any who choose an adhereance to God.  I expect that same respect, in turn.  If anyone has an argument against my points of reasoning for my choice, or if you spot a flaw in my logic - I encourage such feedback, because though I feel certain about my choice, I am aware that I am capable of errors in judgment, and am open to the possibility that I have missed something.  However religious bigotry, that labels me as amoral or immoral as an automatic consequence of my atheism, in spite of my words and actions, is an intolerance that is unustified under any circumstances.

This is a forum where I write.  I expect to be judged by my words.

For anyone who would like a more detailed explanation of the reasoning for my atheism, it can be found here...

The Godless Conservative

Posted by Wonder Woman on October 20, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834920a5c69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I submit myself, for your judgment:

Comments

Good for you. I'm an atheist and most certainly operate within a deep-rooted sense of ethics and morality. But I've certainly been defined on this site - as someone without any ethical or moral capacities whatsoever - because of my atheism.

As you point out, this is an unjustified intolerance. It's also deeply ignorant. These 'religious advocates' cannot show HOW one cannot be ethical and moral, unless one believes in God. They just assert it - but they can't prove it.

Many so-called 'religious' people are extremely intolerant of others who reject their ideology. They essentially define you as non-human if you don't accept religon or god. I, myself, would define anyone without ethics or morality as psychotic - and - I'm not psychotic!

It's useless to argue with these people - whether they are Islamic fundamentalists who want to kill 'all infidels' or Christian fundamentalists who inform you that you have no capacity for ethical and moral behaviour if you are an atheist.

I'm an atheist; I've come to this conclusion by virtue of reason and analysis. I don't accept the notion of a Superior Being. I operate within the scientific tenets of logic, order and the self-organization of information/matter/energy.
That's what my research and papers are about - the networking of informational morphologies..and it began with the Big Bang and doesn't require God, an Intelligent Designer, or anything other than logical ordering..which is a requirement to prevent entropic dissipation of energy.

Now- I'll get reactions from people telling me that I write like a boring professor. Gosh and golly. And, of course, that I am unethical and amoral. Again - gosh and golly. Tough on them.

Stick to your beliefs and continue to be, yourself, ethical and moral. And tolerant of those who are intolerant.

Posted by: ET | 2005-10-20 11:05:43 AM


I am going to have to agree with Speller. It is impossible to have a true sense of morality if you are dictating your own morality. It makes right and wrong relative and that is what is wrong with our society. You try and get rid of God and some person who makes mistakes starts dictating what is right and wrong. One day something could be wrong and the next day it could be right. And, you, ET, you operate within the tenets of logic? Any objective(as opposed to adamant biased ones) would tell you that evolutionary theory is flawed and there is a scientific foundation for a creationist model. I am a science student at university so you can't fool me with your entropic dissipation of energy crap. God doesn't prevent entropy. You evolutionary theory however necessitates a constant decrease in entropy which would be impossible if the universe is billions of years old. To get something as complicated as we have on earth the rest of the universe would have to be in such disaray that it would just fall apart. God does exist. Face it. The sooner you do, the sooner you will understand life and why all this horrible stuff happens in our society.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-20 11:14:24 AM


Again Andrew, I ask you to point out where I demonstrate a lack of morality.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-20 11:22:11 AM


Morality according to who'se judgement? Your own?

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-20 11:36:40 AM


No, yours.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-20 11:39:29 AM


Before I address that question, is this blog not a forum for world issues and not personal issues between you and Speller? You should have just kept this to the comments rather than showboating with a full text insert in the blog section. You may have the rights to post but that does not mean you should abuse them.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-20 11:42:25 AM


Wonder Woman
I’m a Christian and I have friends and relatives who are atheists and in my opinion, some of them actually walk the talk of Christian values better then some who claim to be Christians. I don’t know you but you might walk the talk too.

I haven’t studied all your postings, but I’ve never seen you write anything that offended me as a Christian, quite the opposite. I do vaguely recall something recently where you were a wee bit less then modest … you said you had better morals then most Christians (or something to that effect). Did you mean – you have better morals then some who claim to be Christians?

Finally, my biggest beefs with atheists are 3 things

- Many of them have inherited reformed Judeo –Christian values upon which our free-market economy depends. If we forget, because of secular extremism, how that all happened, how will the next generations be instilled with values previously delivered through what I’ll call Tocqueville-ian institutions?

- They worry too much that extremism will develop in our churches. Do they mean we’re going to start beheading non- believers? Frankly, I think people of faith “get it” with respect to Islamofacism a lot faster then secular people because we’re aware of the nut cases in our congregations and we marginalize them. I.E., they don’t get to run the church.

- Up until I became aware of Islamofascism, I always felt Marxism was the world’s most scary religion. They don’t call it a religion, in fact they claim to be secular and dump on Christians and Jews because they say “religion is the opium of the masses” and they don’t want competition for their disguised religion. Interesting how the Marxists and the Islamofascists are holding hands and singing Kum Ba Yah.

Hope, that helps the debate??

PS

ET
Do you have a typo on your last line?
I think you mean that
We should NOT be tolerant of those intolerant towards us???

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-10-20 11:45:15 AM


Oh, atheism, a system whereby one worships oneself. Sounds like a very moral system to me. Not worshiping idols. That line sounds vaguely familiar to me.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-20 11:46:09 AM


Andrew, it is not impossible to have a true sense of morality and right/wrong without God.
The standard of what's right and what's wrong is objective reality. I'm an atheist and my standard of morality is the implicit value and rights of every individual human. Did I need a belief in God to come to this conclusion? Do I need to believe that humans have value solely because they were created by God? No. My moral values lead me to support capitalism because that is the political system which respects every individual's right to their own life, and which which recognizes that no person's rights can be disposed of in the name of the whole of humanity. My personal values are freedom of the individual, religious freedom included, to the extent that no one else's rights and freedoms are harmed.
Where do you see a lack of morality in the above statements, Andrew? If we were to agree on all practical applications of our personal systems of morality, here and now on this Earth, but disagree on whether we derived our morals from God or by logical reasoning...would you call me immoral?
I respect that your morality is dictated by faith, I hope that you can respect others whose morality is dictated by what they have learnt and observed from the world around them.

Speaking of science, wasn't Galileo locked up by religious moral leaders?

Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-10-20 11:50:22 AM


Mycologists have high morel values.

Posted by: Tony | 2005-10-20 11:54:23 AM


Galileo was threatened by the Catholic church and I'm an Evangelical Baptist thanks. And Charlotte, your morals being dictated by what happens around you is a shaky philosophy. The worlds changes and so will your morals or lack thereof. I think the debate here is not whether you have morals; it is whether they are the proper set or not. There is such thing as bad morals.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-20 11:55:07 AM


Actually Galileo was placed under house arrest for studying morels without a license from the Pope. What they didn't know is that he had a Morchella grow-op in his cellar.

Posted by: Tony | 2005-10-20 12:03:54 PM


Thank you, nomdenet. To clarify, what I said was 'I have a better sense of morality than most Christians I know.' In hindsight, it was a far too sweeping and general statement. I know many Christians whose morality I would never question. But I do know some who extol the virtues of morality, but live their everyday lives, rife with contradiction and lies. And of course that applies to anyone. The point I was trying to make is that, if you judge my words and actions, based on the rules of morality, as defined in the Bible - and yes, I have read it - You might consider me to be a fine, decent Christian. So why should that change, because I'm not?
I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to rectify this poor choice of words. Thank you.

Andrew...I apologize, if you are offended by my "showboating" but this is a topic which often divides Conservatives, unnecessarily, and is in need of a serious discussion.
If any of the administrators of this blog think I was out of line, posting on this, I hope they will let me know, and I will rectify accordingly.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-20 12:04:10 PM


Orthodoxy to the orthodox,
Heresy to the heretic,
But the dust of the rose leaf
belongs to the perfume seller. (an old Sufi proverb)

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-20 12:12:03 PM


nomdenet - No, my last line wasn't a typo. I meant it; we have to be tolerant of those who are intolerant. This doesn't mean being tolerant when they resort to violence, but, tolerant when they revert to illogical rants and insults - such as found in our current example - by Andrew.

Notice that when WonderWoman asked him for specific evidence - he refused to answer and gave a specious ad hominem reason, accusing her of abusing her position on this blog!

Notice also that his claims are tautologies; they are assertions without proof.

He states that you can't be moral without a God; but the fundamentalists of all religions, in all centuries, burning and suicide-bombing their way across history, have all been deeply committed to God.

He also says that without a God, one's morality is relative. No, it isn't; that's a total misconception. Relativism and subjectivism is NOT the result of rejecting God, for I reject any notion of God - and, Andrew (and Speller), I'm a deeply ethical and moral person. Your claims that it is impossible - require PROOF. Not just your assertions. Note how you, Andrew, refused to answer WonderWoman. Why? Because you couldn't.

Andrew - yes, I do operate within the tenets of logic. Just because you say I don't - doesn't mean that I don't!! No, there is no scientific foundation for a creationist model. I'm certainly against neo-Darwinism, which is an externalist mechanical theory, based on randomness and 'natural selection', because I reject randomness as the source of innovation (it's too wasteful of energy and time). But, no, I don't insert an Intelligent Designer or a Creator. There's no proof, Andrew. None.

Instead, I posit an underlying informational dynamics within the physico-chemical and biological realms that operates within logically interacting networks. You might, as a science student, be interested in the online journal I run - based on informational dynamics in the three realms of the physico-chemical, biological and social worlds.
It's at:
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see

The journal is SEED (semiosis, evolution, energy, development) and we explore those themes in all three realms.
There are a number papers in the journal by biologists who are exploring evolution - And people in physics, chemistry, mathematics. And a few issues on the social sciences.

I am just preparing the next issue, which will contain one of my papers, analyzing informational dynamics within quadratic formulae, and there's one from a biologist, analyzing Darwinian (not neo-Darwinian) evolution - using my analytic framework of the Cartesian Quadrant. And, there'll be one by a botanist on development.

Entropy is a reality, Andrew, whether thermodynamic or kinetic - and the universe has had to figure out tactics to prevent it. Complex informational networks seems to have been the answer.

No, there's no logic or empirical evidence to your claim that OUR complexity REQUIRES the rest of the universe to be random.

No, god does not exist. I don't need to 'face it'. But you do need to be more tolerant of others.
You might also be interested in a nice book on Ethics by Harry Gensler. Really great. He has a web site; check him out.

Posted by: ET | 2005-10-20 12:12:45 PM


WW:

Re: "The Godless Conservative"

A most excellent post. You have clearly and succinctly described my own world-view. I came to the same place through hard thought in my teenage years, prefering to define my own moral rules over accepting what Church or State may tell me. Judging oneself or fellow citizens can only be done by examining PRINCIPLES. Those who live their lives by them have my respect, whether those principles were arrived at by a Christian belief system or hard sweat of the mind. I don't believe in any particular God...But I will fight and die for others' right to believe what they wish. This is not a romantic notion. It is a completely logical treatise, which, when I took it to its logical conclusions in my own life, caused me to join the Canadian Armed Forces (Reserve) some 23 years ago. I still serve today.
WW, your post and the comments of your readers has cheered me immensely, and for that I thank you.

Mad Mike

Posted by: Mad Mike | 2005-10-20 12:13:47 PM


Once, when angry with a neighbour, I vented to another neighbour that I hope the first neighbour would go to Hell. The second neighbour said,"I don't know about that. I'm not his judge".
Wow! Talk about having the brakes applied to my rant.
"I'm not his judge".
Might be a lesson there.......

Posted by: old squid | 2005-10-20 12:18:40 PM


Andrew, I totally agree with you that there is such a thing as bad morals. That's why I'm asking you directly, would you consider any of the morals I spoke of as "bad morals"?
"And Charlotte, your morals being dictated by what happens around you is a shaky philosophy. The world changes and so will your morals or lack thereof"
I base my morals on the metaphysical, which doesn't change, not on the man-made. Every other human on the planet could change and agree that marxism or islamic fundamentalism or that a reversal of the separation of church and state is the right moral course and my morals would not change. My morals will not change.

The issue is the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness. Here is a quote from atheist philosopher Ayn Rand, for your consideration:
"The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e that the universe exists independent of consciousness, of any consciousness, divine or otherwise. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists - and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations he receives from another, superior consciousness)."
The primacy of consciousness, is the belief that the universe has no independant existence. Have I called your morals "bad" because you share that belief, Andrew?
You are basing your morals on things of which you have no proof, but of which you have faith. I respect your choice, but please point out my 'bad morals".

Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-10-20 12:18:45 PM


Existence exists the way it exists because that's the way it exists. If it existed some other way, then it would exist that way, but it doesn't, so it doesn't.

Someone said to me once, where are the Emmys? I said, right between the Elees and the Enees. He said, funny, you don't hear about the Elees very often. Yes, I said, we need more els.

Posted by: Tony | 2005-10-20 12:30:51 PM


Charlotte - very nice post. Excellent.

Tony-hah. Mushrooms are great -There's a strange yellow sort in my balcony garden..from the mulch.

No, Andrew, Charlotte's morality isn't relative. But yours is. When you were asked about the morality of the Church's reaction to Galileo's challenge - you gave a relativist reply. You said that it was the 'Catholic' church and you were an 'Evangelical Baptist'. Are you saying that god is relative and is different within each church?

And, no, Andrew, the world doesn't change. The natural laws remain the same. That's called stability. A theory that respects the individual is not relativist behavior but stable..Relativism would mean that one day it was for the individual and the next, for the collective.

And-what are 'bad morals'? Please advise us, Andrew.

Wonder Woman - don't apologize! Andrew had no right to divert from answering your valid request for proof of any amoral or unethical behaviour on your part - by a specious claim that this blog 'wasn't the site' for a religious debate.

It's an important issue. I've been troubled by the adamant hostility to atheism expressed by some on this blog. If that's 'conservatism', I don't want any of it, because it is filled with intolerance, an insistence on Only One Way, and irrationality.

Posted by: ET | 2005-10-20 12:37:38 PM


Hi Wonder Woman,

I don't doubt that you have a strong sense of morals simply because you are an atheist. You have said that you live your life in a moral way and your posts seem to indicate some clearly defined moral values.

However in general, I find that absolute moral values and atheism are mutually exclusive concepts. (note that I am not intending this as a personal attack on you.)

Absolute moral values assume that there is some way that we can determine what is absolutely right and wrong. We could ask the question "Is racism always wrong?" Or is cold blooded murder always wrong? Or is slavery always wrong? etc... I think that a strong majority of people would say "Yes, that is always wrong" to these clear examples.

But the question is why are these things always wrong? As an atheist, I do not understand what basis you can declare them to be always wrong. Certainly you can give many reasons showing they have negative personal and societal consequences, but that still does not explain why are they wrong. Are they wrong because one person says so? Or because a majority of people say so? Or are they intrinsically wrong? And if they are, what makes things intrinsically wrong? How do we determine the benchmark for right and wrong?

For people who believe in God the answer is clear: Things are right or wrong because God declares they are right or wrong. Absolute moral laws require a Sovereign Moral Law Giver, or they cease to be absolute moral laws, but rather moral values established by majority vote or general societal concensus or even individual opinion.

Even our secular government pays lip service to the idea that their moral authority to govern is derived from God. The Bible verse "Give the king thy judgments Oh God" is carved on the east face of the Peace Tower. Our Charter of Rights & Freedoms recognizes that God gives us rights. Our national anthem asks that "God keep our land glorious and free" (it certainly doesn't ask the Canadian Armed Forces to do it!-haha) Our system of law is based on Judeo Christian values which assume God as the ultimate moral law giver.

So while I accept that you live your life according to deep moral values based on your assertations that you do so, I also believe that you do so because you live in a country that generally holds to morals that are God given, and you live within them.

Posted by: timmyz | 2005-10-20 12:43:49 PM


My friend subscribed to a polytheism in which all the gods were named Alexander. He was on the committee to invent new gods. He thought we needed more Als.

I said to his grandmother, my, what fine Als you have. She said, the better to eat you with, my dear. That's right, she was an Al in El's clothing. It reminded me of the legend of the boy who cried morel.

Anyway, I took the absolutist value, and boy did that confuse the surd.

Posted by: Tony | 2005-10-20 12:51:39 PM


Ebt, nice of you to show us your wonderful "Christian Values".

Go to hell indeed. Hypocrite.

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-10-20 12:54:35 PM


ET
That’s an interesting twist of events. Now we have you the atheist advocating tolerance to the intolerant and me the Christian having had enough of this tolerance crap. My attitude is similar that of my favorite Christian world leader –
“bring ‘em on” … ;>)

A very impressive site ET!!!

An excellent post Charlotte,
my 2 favorite conservatives that I fortunately discovered in the 1960’s are Ayn Rand an atheist and William F Buckley a devout Roman Catholic - peace!

WW, this debate is long over due; if we don’t have it and get through it together, conservatism will never get off the ground in Canada. The debate never ends, the USA is 25 years ahead of us on conservatism and they’re still struggling, witness the Miers nomination.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-10-20 12:55:31 PM


timmyz- I disagree with your conclusion. You are essentially saying that someone who is an atheist AND is still moral, is a 'closet' believer in god, i.e., is living in a society that believes in god. I disagree. You, and Andrew, are positing a form of supernaturalism.

The source, for me as an atheist, of my morality, is what can be called 'The Golden Rule' (see Harry Gensler's books on Ethics) No, Gensler is not the origin of my ethics; I read him very late, but, he articulates it well..He, by the way, is a deeply religious person, but, he claims that ethics doesn't depend on religion.

After all, to state that an ethical person must believe in, or live within, a religious society, would mean that people such as Aristotle and Plato were incapable of ethics!!! Aristotle's ethics was based on rationality.

The rule is simply - 'treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation'.

Posted by: ET | 2005-10-20 1:02:41 PM


That's all you evolutionists ever say. There's no proof. The proof is all around you. Life defies evolutionary thought. Death defies evolutionary thought. Origins defy evolutionary thought. You know why evolutionists have yet to find the missing links(and there are numerous of them)? They're trying to hammer a square peg into a circular hole. I have no problem getting my circular peg (God) into the circular hole but evolutionary theory (square peg) is never going to fit in that hole. You're wrong about origins. You're wrong about evolution. Go read up on it: trueorigins.org. God is real. You'll realise that if you don't repent of your ways and end up in hell. Atheism is blasphemy. Atheistic thought is the reason why the conservatives can't get electic. Your relative morality makes the real conservatives to look bad. You just go with the flow and accept whats happening today. A Christian 100 years from now will have the same principles as one 1000 years ago but an atheist will have worse and worse principles as time goes on. I am finished with this blog. The lot of your are angry atheists. You wrecked this country.

Posted by: Andrew | 2005-10-20 1:17:58 PM


Toot toot tootsie good bye,
Toot toot tootsie don't cry.

In 1670, Blaise Pascal (a famous monk who wrote "Traité du triangle arithmétique", one of the most important documents in the history of the species) wrote that: "There is almost nothing right or wrong which does not alter with a change in clime. A shift of three degrees of latitude is enough to overthrow jurisprudence. One's location on the meridin decides the truth, that or a change in territorial possession. Fundamental laws alter. What is right changes with the times. Strange justice that is bounded by a river or mountain! The truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other."

Personally, I agree with ET more than Pascal. But what do I know, George Bernard Shaw said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules". That's the one the Liberals believe, that's why they think it's ok for them to be corrupt but not for us.

Posted by: Tony | 2005-10-20 1:20:50 PM


I'm still hoping Andrew reappears to answer mine and Wonder Woman's questions....

The fact that everyone participating in this discussion is so engaged should put to rest any concerns that this site is not the place for "this type" of discussion, or that it should've occurred in a private message between WW and Speller.

Timmyz, I'll repeat that a standard of right and wrong does not require a God. Using your example of racism, my standard of right and wrong is metaphysical reality /the implicit value, freedom and rights of every single human being as an individual...not as a specific race...or gender...or nationality. There, no God involved and racism is proven wrong morally.

"... I also believe that you do so because you live in a country that generally holds to morals that are God given, and you live within them."

I know this is going to irk some people, and that they may respond with the statement that the Bible isn't to be taken literally...but there are many morals in the Bible which would be quite opposite the morals that our country generally holds to.
Forgive my lack of religious historical knowledge, but isn't the Bible the word of God, and therefore the authority on what God-given morals are?

Posted by: Charlotte | 2005-10-20 1:27:29 PM


I'm no expert but wasn't the Bible written by people? If so, isn't it subject to human fallibility?

Also, if morals are absolute and set in stone (literally for the commandments) and based on the bible, and in that bible the 10 commandments has a part that says: "thou shalt not kill" and these are not relative (i.e. not subject to discretion, situation, etc) how then do you defend your country, your family, yourself...

The commandment doesn't say "thou shalt not kill, unless..." It says "thou shalt not kill." Period. What if you have to go fight the Nazis to save civilization? How do you not kill in order to do that?

I would doubt there are any right-minded people who would not think it moral to fight for your country or defend your family. So how do you explain the obvious contradiction? Is this not moral relativism?

The answer is that people's morals are not all listed like an encyclopaedia in a guidebook. The bible isn't all encompassing. The world may change, but the bible doesn't change with it. How you apply morals (whether religious or not) is up to the individual. Moral people will be able to tell right from wrong even in situations they have never been in and are not covered in the bible. That's because morals are about the kind of person you are - not what someone else told you to be. You either know right from wrong or you'll never learn (rendering debate with a liberal a waste of time.) For that matter, there are many people who claim to be religious who will never learn right from wrong despite being raised with the teachings of their religion.

At any rate, I don't find my own moral compos lacking despite being an atheist.

I will say that the intolerance shown by some of the religious people on this site is the very reason for the right's rejection in several elections. There are large numbers of people who want the liberals out but who think the Spellers an Ebt's are worse. The religious can't demand tolerance but not show any. I'll been the first to defend Christians against liberal intolerance but will also criticise Christians when they're the intolerant ones.

The Conservative movement will lose until it reassures the general public that it isn't the Taliban. That means the individual is king, not the state, not the church. The individual. I see the religious people wanting into my bedroom, the Liberals wanting into my wallet and I want everyone out of both. Small government conservatism means small, not big, intrusive government of a different sort than the left.

Bottom line: Your religion is your own. I won't tell you not to pray. Don't tell me I have to. When we both have the right to/from religion we have liberty.

Posted by: Warwick | 2005-10-20 1:38:39 PM


Charlotte - again, a very nice post.

I note that Andrew is back, but, he refuses to answer both WW and Charlotte's questions about examples. All he's doing is rant, rant, rant. No proof. Just rant. I doubt that he's a science student; or even a student.

Yes, Andrew, there IS proof of evolution. Read some books. I just got my latest issue of SCIENCE today..there are several articles in it dealing with evolution and adaptation.

I quite agree, however, as you imply, there are no missing links. That is, I disagree with the neo-Darwinian 'gradual' evolution, supposedly caused by 'random' mutation. Absolutely not. I'm into 'informed adaptive evolution'..which is based on information theory and both local and non-local informational interactions. I won't bore people with the details...

But Andrew (or is it Speller?) - you won't convince anyone by your rants and threats of hell. WHY, WHY, should anyone believe in god just because you say so? Just because you threaten them with 'hell'???

No, Andrew, the presence of atheists is not the reason the CPC haven't been elected. I wasn't aware that the Liberal election wins were due to the lack ??? of atheists amongst their tribe.

What's your proof that an atheist will have 'worse and worse' principles over time??? What's your proof? Oh- I forgot. You don't answer questions. You just pontificate and preach and threaten. And now, you are ranting and running. That's a typical response of a ranting religious fundamentalist; they rant, they threaten, they refuse to answer questions and then - leave, telling you that you are too dumb or corrupt to be interacted with.

So- we atheists have wrecked the country? I thought that it was the Liberals - Are they atheists?

Tony - the Liberals do have a Golden Rule; it's all about gold. For them. Not us.

Posted by: ET | 2005-10-20 1:44:53 PM


Warwick- an excellent post. Says it all.

Posted by: ET | 2005-10-20 1:59:48 PM


Speaking of morality, Warwick aren't you the guy who just called for the death of Trudeau's son Alexandre??

"Let's take up a fund to send him skiing this winter. Somewhere near a lake..."

You want him to die just like his brother. Warwick you are a sociopath with NO MORAL COMPASS.

Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-20 2:01:35 PM


Speaking of morality, Warwick aren't you the guy who just called for the death of Trudeau's son Alexandre??

"Let's take up a fund to send him skiing this winter. Somewhere near a lake..."

You want him to die just like his brother. Warwick you are a sociopath with NO MORAL COMPASS.

Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-20 2:02:36 PM


Speaking of morality, Warwick aren't you the guy who just called for the death of Trudeau's son Alexandre??

"Let's take up a fund to send him skiing this winter. Somewhere near a lake..."

You want him to die just like his brother. Warwick you are a sociopath with NO MORAL COMPASS.

Posted by: Justin | 2005-10-20 2:03:28 PM


Well, I'll say one thing about gold, it has an old relationship with corruption. Maybe that's why I've always preferred the noble gases. They're inert, like me, not corrupt, like the Liberals. The NDP aren't even an element, they're just a corrosive agent. The conservatives should be our ferrum at this point, unfortunately they seem to be going over like plumbum. Perhaps Canadians just have too much faith that all that glitters...

Posted by: Tony | 2005-10-20 2:07:35 PM


Warwick - Just to clarify...I believe the Bible says "Thou shall not murder" which is different. But I agree with your summation.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-20 2:08:14 PM


Warwick - Just to clarify...I believe the Bible says "Thou shall not murder" which is different. But I agree with your summation.

Posted by: Wonder Woman | 2005-10-20 2:09:39 PM


As a former catholic and now deist who does not believe in an activist god I have always felt that the most moral people out there are the clean living atheists. The reason for my belief is simple. If you are an evangelical with a belief in heaven and hell then behaving on earth is no great chore, you do it in the hope of eternal reward (heaven) and in fear of eternal punishment (hell). When an atheist displays personal morality they do so with no anticipation of personal reward, but rather because it is the decent way to behave. To sum up, one should never confuse a moral person with one who is simply afraid to get caught breaking the rules.

As a follow-up to Andrew’s comments about evolutionists....I take it that you, Andrew, are not afraid of a possible bird-flu pandemic, because that can only happen is the flu virus evolves. AS for AIDS and antibiotic-resistant bacteria....I suppose they don’t really exist but are simply figments of our fevered imaginations.

Posted by: Blair | 2005-10-20 2:22:10 PM


Yes, Charlotte, it is time we drag this out on the kitchen floor and let the cat sniff it. High time to stop shying away from the issue, let's hit it square-on!

Altogether too many people who actually are conservative thinkers have been frightened by the "right-wing fundamentalist" label. This forum gives the lie to that label. The MSM will not be objective, as they seem to fear liberty more than anything else.
So, any fresh ideas on how to involve the rest of the country in this debate? Outside the blogosphere?

Seems to me that there is more than enough talent here to come up with a heck of a T.V. commercial...Lets see...this entire debate, and all the philosophical foundations it is built on, in a 15 second short. No problem, lets do it. Really, I'm not being sarcastic, lets do it!

Mad Mike

Posted by: Mad Mike | 2005-10-20 2:47:34 PM


Yes, Charlotte, it is time we drag this out on the kitchen floor and let the cat sniff it. High time to stop shying away from the issue, let's hit it square-on!

Altogether too many people who actually are conservative thinkers have been frightened by the "right-wing fundamentalist" label. This forum gives the lie to that label. The MSM will not be objective, as they seem to fear liberty more than anything else.
So, any fresh ideas on how to involve the rest of the country in this debate? Outside the blogosphere?

Seems to me that there is more than enough talent here to come up with a heck of a T.V. commercial...Lets see...this entire debate, and all the philosophical foundations it is built on, in a 15 second short. No problem, lets do it. Really, I'm not being sarcastic, lets do it!

Mad Mike

Posted by: Mad Mike | 2005-10-20 2:49:03 PM


Charlotte: isn’t the Bible the word of God?
Yes, but as WW noted re killing versus murder, it evolves with better translation. God also gave us a brain to reason and to use common sense. The Bible is also called the Living Book.
I find G K Chesterton helpful, it’s not the Bible but his works are humorous and he’s probably responsible for C S Lewis an atheist being converted to a Catholic. Lewis’ works are in production by Disney and while not the Bible; these productions offer hope that the next generation will have something to cling to image-wise for values. In my mind, these works demonstrate that healthy faith and religion evolve with everything else in this world, it’s a matter of common sense.

But as my atheist Aunt says, “ nomdenet, the problem is that common sense is not common”. Then I say, “I guess not or my parents would not have called me nomdenet.”

Warwick - as I’ve already mentioned – my faith allows me to defend my family against the intolerant and I will do that without taking time to checkout the passage in the Bible that permits it. In other words, people of faith also use reason and common sense. That’s also what gave us capitalism, which in turn gives us the individualism you so eloquently described.

So, folks please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water because I think capitalism is counter-intuitive (for a lot of our population) and it takes a lot of faith to stick to it. Without conservatism taking hold in this country we’re gonzo economically and without a strong economy we’ll end up being as hollow and faithless as France and Germany, the countries the Librano$$ emulate.


Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-10-20 2:53:10 PM


Yes, Charlotte, it is time we drag this out on the kitchen floor and let the cat sniff it. High time to stop shying away from the issue, let's hit it square-on!

Altogether too many people who actually are conservative thinkers have been frightened by the "right-wing fundamentalist" label. This forum gives the lie to that label. The MSM will not be objective, as they seem to fear liberty more than anything else.
So, any fresh ideas on how to involve the rest of the country in this debate? Outside the blogosphere?

Seems to me that there is more than enough talent here to come up with a heck of a T.V. commercial...Lets see...this entire debate, and all the philosophical foundations it is built on, in a 15 second short. No problem, lets do it. Really, I'm not being sarcastic, lets do it!

Mad Mike

Posted by: Mad Mike | 2005-10-20 2:53:25 PM


It seems to me that the question is whether there are sets of immutable Laws that flow from an Absolute Nature of the univserse. As it happens, I believe that there are, but then, hey, whadda I know?

It might be worth noting that some have mentioned Aristotle and some Ayn Rand. As it happens, I believe Ayn Rand also liked Aristotle (I'm reaching back to the Dark Ages here, but I think that Aristotle and Nietsche were both people that Rand liked). And I know ET likes Aristotle because of comments in the past.

Something to consider here is the fact that Aristotle has a lot of fans. For example, Thomas Aquinas loved Aristotle, and Augustine loved Plato. As it happens, Thomas Aquinas was a major factor in developing our educational systems sometime back in the 13th or 14th century, and so both the Church and science went in that direction.

It's curious to speculate on how development would have gone had Plato and Augustine been dominant.

In fact, there are even a lot of people like Professor Ralph McInerny, a famous Aristotelian at Notre Dame, who has chosen specifically by the Catholic Church to help the continued development of the philosophy of religion in as much as today religion and philosophy don't keep as much company as they used to.

Anyway, so here you have atheist libertarians and Catholic theologians all drawing from the same source. There's probably a message in there somewhere.

A friend of mine swears that the following is true. A theologian had a near death experience (NDE) that contained all of the usual elements -- the tunnel, the light, and so forth. Furthermore, he was supposed to have had a conversation with God.

Well, apparently they patched him up and the word got around in his theological circles that one of their number had actually passed on and returned, and so the other theologians were eagar to talk with him.

After he was well enough, the NDE theologian went to a conference they were having, and the other theologians crowded around him, "What did God say, what was He like?" ... etc, etc.. And our NDE theologian eagarlly told them,

"Guess what! God doesn't care about theology!"

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-20 2:54:45 PM


Yes, Charlotte, it is time we drag this out on the kitchen floor and let the cat sniff it. High time to stop shying away from the issue, let's hit it square-on!

Altogether too many people who actually are conservative thinkers have been frightened by the "fundamentalist" label. This forum gives the lie to that label. The MSM will not be objective, as they seem to fear liberty more than anything else.
So, any fresh ideas on how to involve the rest of the country in this debate? Outside the blogosphere?

Seems to me that there is more than enough talent here to come up with a heck of a T.V. commercial...Lets see...this entire debate, and all the philosophical foundations it is built on, in a 15 second short. No problem, lets do it. Really, I'm not being sarcastic, lets do it!

Mad Mike

Posted by: Mad Mike | 2005-10-20 2:55:09 PM


Yes, Charlotte, it is time we drag this out on the kitchen floor and let the cat sniff it. High time to stop shying away from the issue, let's hit it square-on!

Altogether too many people who actually are conservative thinkers have been frightened by the "fundamentalist" label. This forum gives the lie to that label. The MSM will not be objective, as they seem to fear liberty more than anything else.
So, any fresh ideas on how to involve the rest of the country in this debate? Outside the blogosphere?

Seems to me that there is more than enough talent here to come up with a heck of a T.V. commercial...Lets see...this entire debate, and all the philosophical foundations it is built on, in a 15 second short. No problem, lets do it. Really, I'm not being sarcastic, lets do it!

Mad Mike

Posted by: Mad Mike | 2005-10-20 2:56:21 PM


It seems to me that the question is whether there are sets of immutable Laws that flow from an Absolute Nature of the univserse. As it happens, I believe that there are, but then, hey, whadda I know?

It might be worth mentioning that some have mentioned Aristotle and some Ayn Rand. As it happens, I believe Ayn Rand also liked Aristotle (I'm reaching back to the Dark Ages here, but I think that Aristotle and Nietsche were both people that Rand liked). And I know ET likes Aristotle because of comments in the past.

Something to consider here is the fact that Aristotle has a lot of fans. For example, Thomas Aquinas loved Aristotle, and Augustine loved Plato. As it happens, Thomas Aquinas was a major factor in developing our educational systems sometime back in the 13th or 14th century, and so both the Church and science went in that direction.

It's curious to speculate on how development would have gone had Plato and Augustine been dominant.

In fact, there are even a lot of people like Professor Ralph McInerny, a famous Aristotelian at Notre Dame, who has chosen specifically by the Catholic Church to help the continued development of the philosophy of religion in as much as today religion and philosophy don't keep as much company as they used to.

Anyway, so here you have atheist libertarians and Catholic theologians all drawing from the same source. There's probably a message in there somewhere.

A friend of mine swears that the following is true. A theologian had a near death experience (NDE) that contained all of the usual elements -- the tunnel, the light, and so forth. Furthermore, he was supposed to have had a conversation with God.

Well, apparently they patched him up and the word got around in his theological circles that one of their number had actually passed on, and so the other theologians were eagar to talk with him.

After he was well enough, the NDE theologian went to a conference they were having, and the other theologians crowded around him, "What did God say, what was He like?" ... etc, etc.. And our NDE theologian eagarlly told them,

"Guess what! God doesn't care about theology!"

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-20 2:57:48 PM


WW: I am a fellow atheist for reasons of emotion and of logic I cannot refute. At the same time I have the greatest respect for Christian principles, and for the Roman Catholic Church in its efforts to be true to its own interpretation of those principles (I was never a Catholic and disagree with that Church on many things).

Meanwhile, I wonder about the morality of all those Liberals--especially so-called Catholic--who resolutely act against the doctrines of their church. Some belief.

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-10-20 2:58:24 PM


Charlotte: isn’t the Bible the word of God?
Yes, but as WW noted re killing versus murder, it evolves with better translation. God also gave us a brain to reason and to use common sense. I find G K Chesterton helpful, it’s not the Bible but his works are humorous and he’s probably responsible for C S Lewis an atheist being converted to a Catholic. Lewis’ works are in production by Disney and while not the Bible; these productions offer hope that the next generation will have something to cling to image-wise for values. In my mind, these works demonstrate that healthy faith and religion evolve with everything else in this world, it’s a matter of common sense.

But as my atheist Aunt says, “ nomdenet, the problem is that common sense is not common”. Then I say, “I guess not or my parents would not have called me nomdenet.”

Warwick - as I’ve already mentioned – my faith allows me to defend my family against the intolerant and I will do that without taking time to checkout the passage in the Bible that permits it. In other words, people of faith also use reason and common sense. That’s also what gave us capitalism, which in turn gives us the individualism you so eloquently described.

So, folks please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water because I think capitalism is counter-intuitive (for a lot of our population) and it takes a lot of faith to stick to it. Without conservatism taking hold in this country we’re gonzo economically and without a strong economy we’ll end up being as hollow and faithless as France and Germany, the countries the Librano$$ emulate.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-10-20 2:58:31 PM


It seems to me that the question is whether there are sets of immutable Laws that flow from an Absolute Nature of the univserse. As it happens, I believe that there are, but then, hey, whadda I know?

It might be worth noting that some have mentioned Aristotle and some Ayn Rand. As it happens, I believe Ayn Rand also liked Aristotle (I'm reaching back to the Dark Ages here, but I think that Aristotle and Nietsche were both people that Rand liked). And I know ET likes Aristotle because of comments in the past.

Something to consider here is the fact that Aristotle has a lot of fans. For example, Thomas Aquinas loved Aristotle, and Augustine loved Plato. As it happens, Thomas Aquinas was a major factor in developing our educational systems sometime back in the 13th or 14th century, and so both the Church and science went in that direction.

It's curious to speculate on how development would have gone had Plato and Augustine been dominant.

In fact, there are even a lot of people like Professor Ralph McInerny, a famous Aristotelian at Notre Dame, who has chosen specifically by the Catholic Church to help the continued development of the philosophy of religion in as much as today religion and philosophy don't keep as much company as they used to.

Anyway, so here you have atheist libertarians and Catholic theologians all drawing from the same source. There's probably a message in there somewhere.

A friend of mine swears that the following is true. A theologian had a near death experience (NDE) that contained all of the usual elements -- the tunnel, the light, and so forth. Furthermore, he was supposed to have had a conversation with God.

Well, apparently they patched him up and the word got around in his theological circles that one of their number had actually passed on and returned, and so the other theologians were eagar to talk with him.

After he was well enough, the NDE theologian went to a conference they were having, and the other theologians crowded around him, "What did God say, what was He like?" ... etc, etc.. And our NDE theologian eagarlly told them,

"Guess what! God doesn't care about theology!"

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-10-20 2:59:25 PM


Yes, Charlotte, it is time we drag this out on the kitchen floor and let the cat sniff it. High time to stop shying away from the issue, let's hit it square-on!

Altogether too many people who actually are conservative thinkers have been frightened by the "fundamentalist" label. This content of this forum gives the lie to that label. The MSM will not be objective, as they seem to fear liberty more than anything else.
So, any fresh ideas on how to involve the rest of the country in this debate? Outside the blogosphere?

Seems to me that there is more than enough talent here to come up with a heck of a T.V. commercial...Lets see...this entire debate, and all the philosophical foundations it is built on, in a 15 second short. No problem, lets do it. Really, I'm not being sarcastic, lets do it!

Mad Mike

Posted by: Mad Mike | 2005-10-20 2:59:52 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.