A little while ago I wrote this post on my own blog: https://bbnewsblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/magical-thinking-springs-up-everywhere-and-language-is-its-accomplice-how-language-can-and-does-deceive-us/ .
Now I notice that also my knowledgeable cyberfriend Victoria Neuronotes has written a post about how words literally can change the brain wirings and the way we perceive and interpret what is going on in the world (called reality) we all live in.
Not only are words able to offend or encourage, they also deceive and prime our brains. They influence our salience, that is our (mostly) unconscious need/habit to decide (also unconsciously) what is more valuable – or less valuable – to us.
Words also contribute to make us more biased. Especially religious people are very good at paraphrasing. That’s why they so easily can worship a God like the Abrahamic evil and punishing God and even claim, in a spirit of ecumenical and monotheistic understanding, that the God of the Muslims, Jews and Christians actually is the same God – a claim that is logically false. (Also consider the difference between monotheism and monolatrism/monolatry, where monolatrism is the recognition of the existence of many gods, but with the consistent worship of only one of all these deities, while monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is only one real and true God.)
Tag Archives: Creationism
How to punish disobedient children – the biblical style.
Just let them perish IN THE NAME OF GOD.
And God will feel content.
I don’t normally write much on Sundays… This is the day I spend with my son. I only pick him up around 11AM, but since I can’t sleep late in the unpleasant heat of this clammy Johannesburg climate, here goes…
Note that they missed one that I know of: Psalm 137:9 – Smash them against the rocks!
Full disclosure: I have not read the buybull for 25 years, when I was conscripted to waste a year of my life in the apartheid white South African army, and the parish priest recommended the book of James, so that was all I read. Thus I can be accused of that old doozy: Taking the verses out of context.
Question: In what context is it ever acceptable to be killing children?
So I don’t care for the context. In any case, Christians often like to accuse anyone pointing…
View original post 242 more words
Important question: When did the rebellion in Heaven take place? Original title: Incompetence or malevolence: the failure of the Christian narrative.
John Zande, the man behind the blog “The superstitious naked ape”, is one of my favorites in the blogosphere.
Not only is he clever, but he also often finds new angles to debunk and refute silly God arguments.
In this blog post he argues that Lucifer (a.k.a the Serpent in the Garden of Eden and the Devil) had defected from God and therefore been cast out from Heaven down to Earth. So Adam and Eve were not the first sinners ever among the entities created by God Almighty. In fact, God’s own divine and elaborated creation plan was already soiled by Lucifer’s pride, envy and wish to be equal to God.
The weakest link in John Zandes reasoning is the answer to this important key question is: When was the Devil cast out from Heaven?
Unfortunately the Holy Scripture is a bit vague about the exact date the rebellion in Heaven happened.
The following is known: 1) Lucifer is an angel. 2) All the angels were created before the earth (Job 38:4-7). 3) Satan must have fallen before he – disguised as a Serpent – tempted Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1-14).
Conclusion: Satan’s fall must therefore have occurred somewhere after the time the angels were created and before he tempted Adam and Eve in Paradise.
But whether Satan’s fall occurred a few minutes or millennia before he tempted Adam and Eve in the garden is unfortunately not specified in the Scripture.
But we know that many church fathers and Christian philosophers and theologians have pondered this important question.
For example, Saint Augustine relates the fall of the evil and rebellious angels to the book of Genesis: “And God saw the light that it was good, and he divided the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1:4).
We also know that Thomas Aquinas picks up this allegory from Saint Augustine, and identifies the separation of light from darkness as the day (date) the evil and rebelling angels were separated from the good, loyal and obedient ones uo in Heaven.
And who am I to question what Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas consider being the truth about when the rebellion occurred in Heaven?
So John Zande seems to be right in his conclusions. His views expressed in this blog post are -as we can see – supported by two so extremely respectable and revered persons that the Catholic Church once honored them as not only saints but also as Doctor of the Church, thereby indicating that both Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas still today are considered the Catholic Church’s greatest theologians and/or philosophers ever!
Need I say more?
Read more about Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas, and their dating of Lucifer’s fall, here: http://taylormarshall.com/2013/11/how-did-lucifer-become-satan-thomas-aquinas-answers.html .
“God’s creation was perfect; there was no sickness, pain, or death. But this perfect creation did not last long.” (Ken Ham)
The Christian narrative is erected upon the basal claim that Man corrupted Yhwh’s perfect Creation and is therefore diseased and in need of a cure. That cure is, of course, Jesus, who sacrificed himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself.
It’s a stunningly ridiculous plot, the absurd work of ferociously unimaginative men, and it is made all the more outrageously idiotic by the fact that the bible doesn’t even support the cardinal claim upon which Christianity is built: that Man corrupted Creation.
By the bibles own chronology of events, the angels were created before the earth, and the earth before man (Job 38:4-7). Evil, however, entered Creation before the earth, and therefore before man… an event witnessed in the fall of Yhwh’s most beautiful creation, Lucifer…
View original post 144 more words
A very good article about arguments used on the ICR website to prove the existence of God – and how they can be refuted.
ICR stands for the Institution for Creation Research, probably one of the most famous – or rather notorious – sites on the internet, promoting creationism and other religious true believer bullshit.
Rounaqb is, as I have written before, an unusually clever blogger and, as such, also good at logical reasoning, which you all can see, if you read his newest blog article, which is now reblogged my me.
Because the most important of the ICR God arguments revolves round cause and effect, I think my own comment, given in the comment field below rounaqb’s blog, can be seen as a kind of summary of what is at issue here (at least some aspects thereof). So I choose to re-use the content of my comment also here in this “introduction”, to my own readers, of rounaqb’s refutation arguments.
I wrote: If something has a cause it’s pretty easy to believe that this same cause also has a meaning.
Why being a cause without having a meaning as well?
Being a cause, which is often bothersome in itself, without any meaning at all, wouldn’t that be “meaningless”, almost a waste of time and energy?
I think evolution has given us a brain that is constantly searching for causes. AND, therefore, meaning, too
If you can’t find any visible cause while looking around you, then the brain tries to invent Hidden Causal Agents (HCAs).
Your brain seems to prefer HCAs capable of also conveying, at the same time, an “attached” message of meaning.
It looks, according to your brain, like the HCA does this to you to reward or punish you.
Thereby you can imagine – and feel – there is a locus of control located inside yourself. Or in other words, it seems, at last partly, that it’s up to you if the HCA causing/originating the cause will choose to reward, or punish, you for your deeds.
When in doubt, you can always ask the sage of your tribe/group/community.
That sage has often many similarities to a medicin man, a shaman or a priest (a.k.a. god interpreter).
With that said, I hope you are going to acquaint yourselves with rounaqb’s own arguments.
I’m sure you won’t be disappointed.
Googling ‘evidence for God’, the first suggestion Google gives(at least in my location) is the official website of The Institution for Creation Research. The title seemed quite interesting to me, probably because I thought that here I will get most of typical theistic arguments, well presented. It didn’t disappoint me in that sense. I got what I expected. There are three ‘lines of evidences’ ICR has proposed. The law of causality, “the triune universe” and “design and purpose”. So, I am introducing this series, through which I will try to refute the proposed arguments from ICR. So, let’s begin.
1.Everything has a cause.
The article starts with “In ordinary experience, one knows intuitively that nothing happens in isolation”. This statement is true, as it clearly mentions ‘ordinary experiences’ and ‘intuition’. Of course, our ordinary experiences always tell us the an effect must have a cause, like…
View original post 622 more words
Just face the facts, there is no soul, there is no afterlife. It’s your wishful thinking that deceives you.
In the autumn of 2014 Dr. Sam Parnia’s long awaited AWARE study about the authenticity of Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) as evidence of a surviving soul was published.
Dr. Parnia’s study can, at best, be described as very disheartening and depressing for those believing that NDEs are evidence of a soul that survives the bodily (physical) death.
Almost exactly a year ago I posted this blog focusing that interesting subject, see: https://bbnewsblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/as-i-said-before/
Now, a year later, I think it’s about time to have a new look at the NDE phenomena and how they can be explained without involving religious bullshit concepts like god(s), soul(s) or afterlife.
NDEs are striking experiences that typically occur when one is close to death or exposed to life-threatening situations of intense physical and/or emotional danger (first coined by Moody 1975, Life after Life. New York: Bantam Books). This unusual experience includes a variety of aberrant components such as: sensations of peace and vivid imagery, bright flashes of light, the sensation of travelling through a dark tunnel towards a bright light, a disconnection from the physical body (a shift in perspective: the Out-of-Body Experience), and the sensation of entering a light / visions of an ‘afterlife’ etc.
And she continues:
From a parapsychological (or survivalist / supernatural) perspective, NDEs are understood as mystical and spiritual experiences that expose the individual to another world (or afterlife). This is taken as evidence for the survival of bodily death (i.e. dualism); that the mind/consciousness is not dependent on the brain.
In stark contrast is the scientific/neuroscience perspective. Here, it is argued that NDEs are hallucinatory phenomena, generated by a disinhibited and highly confused, dying brain (known as the ‘dying brain account’).
After this introduction she argues that:
My highly valued cyber friend Charles Rogers is a very interesting blogger. He combines both knowledge and wisdom.
In this specific blog he and I discuss/debate questions about (the genetic and evolutionary aspects of) life, especially its still unknown, at least partly, origin.
I hope our debate will be of great interest for my blog followers, too.
The topics discussed and penetrated also show that religion and science will never meet and probably can’t be reconciled with each other.
For safety’s sake I feel a need to clarify that Charles Rogers -a.k.a. the blogger clanton1934 – is NOT a creationist. We both belong to the scientific “team”. So, please, don’t jump to any premature conclusions.
Instead, start your own quest for the “truth” by reading and pondering – BOTH the blog post AND the comments.
On August 5, 2015, I published a blog post, “Life Is Inexplicable”, reviewing contrasting views on the origin of life (Addy Proos and Richard Dawson). I received a lot of interest in that post. The link to that post is:
My discussions in “Life Is A Journey” further discussed these questions; see this link
My opinion remains contrary to the random-mechanism scientists, (Dawkins and Hoffman), (9, 12) who believe life rose by only random, physical encounters of, first, organic chemicals, then “living molecules”. These scientist believe that living DNA replicates itself, and all life by random mistakes without a purpose. I concluded that in spite of remarkable findings in nano technology, I believe a mystery remains. This mystery is: from where does Dr. Proos’ “engine” came? What continues to drive “the engine in the car” (the living cell) uphill against Newton’s Second Law of Motion. Furthermore what has sustained this…
View original post 815 more words
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Rosa Rubicondior has written and published a book entitled The Light of Reason: And Other Atheist Writing.
I’m darn sure this ebook will enlighten many atheists’s lives.
The articles are arranged into four sections, each dealing with a different aspect of Atheism and science and the interface between science and religion.
Those sections are:
#1: Religion and Atheism, which looks at the reasons why Atheism is the position of choice for critical thinkers and people who allow the evidence to determine their beliefs and who suspend judgement in the absence of evidence.