Sunday School

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

A Christian is confused upon learning that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of religion.

The “king” of Shambhala Buddhism follows other religions by sexually abusing women. Will he be forgiven in this lifetime?

The Christian Right and Russia prey together.

This story from New Mexico brought a tear to my eye.

Satanists protect the U.S. Constitution from abuse by Christians.

Why Australia does not need a Religious Discrimination Act?

Another priest in Chile is arrested for abusing children.

This weeks’ Woo: The Enneagram, a spiritual personality test that even Jesus would take.

Climate Change: The EPA is not fit for purpose and is a domestic threat to the USA. Ask Rep. Scott Walker for his opinion.

The false comfort of religion when it comes to dealing with bereavement. In fact losing your religion might make you financially better off.

Some people are confused about how the moon got there so they are unlikely to ever need a space lawyer. China will probably need some when NASA build their lunar gateway.

Please do not eat of this tree click this link.

A professor of Philosophy and Intellectual History embarrasses himself with his intellectual naivety.

What is (and isn’t) Scientific about the Multiverse. Maybe we are alone on this pale blue dot? What would it feel like to think you were the last person alive? How then would you know what is was like to be human?

Was Kant morally wrong to objectify his lovers?

Would you like to take a free online course on Humanism?

This week I am reading this book: Einstein’s Masterwork.

We pause to remember: Harlan Ellison.

Some photographs taken last week.

While you are waiting for the kettle to boil…..

Coffee Break Video:  Ted Talk – Where are all the aliens? What is Entropy? Who is a stable genius?

[_Robert_]

Hail Satan !

As someone who lives south of the Mason/Dixon line, I can’t tell you how much amusement I get from those folks.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

I am bemused at not having heard about “Enneagram” before. There is an amazing amount of BS to it. It is Mega-Woo.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

@Robert – AfterSchoolSatan is a great idea for kids!!

[Davis]

Re: Prémontval’s terrible proof of God. Only some possible beings have the quality of siety, because they won the birth lottery. It’s not that difficult to understand There are a gazillion gazillion gazillion possible beings and that’s limiting humans to having any DNA that doesn’t stop you from being born and living for more than a few minutes after birth. Only a minuscule percentage of possible beings will ever exist unless we not only populate the entire galaxy, but every other galaxy and then keep reproducing at an artificially faster rate than normal before the big crunch or cold entropy. Why do some not exist? They lost the birth lottery. Why can’t others exist? They didn’t win the birth lottery. Why could a being like God not exist? Because while such beings are theoretically possible we have no reason to believe they won any “supernatural being lottery”. We’d need some evidence and confirmation…otherwise, its safe to assume they never won the supernatural lottery. A first semester philosopher or even an armchair philosopher could figure that out. Yet the biggest flaw in this terrible argument, is the fact that I could conceive of an infinite amount of Gods (far more than possible humans) of which some Gods are the “single only God” and most are “one of many”. Perhaps this Professor of Philosophy who must have graduated from Mississippi bible college could spend the next 20 years explaining how both a singular God and a pack of many Gods can exist along with every single possible human (and other alien life form). And as a bonus…why does only the singular God exist…and why the one who quite specifically did everything an ancient book says happened. There clearly aren’t any comment sections allowed as this guy would have been philosophically flayed alive.

[Davis]

Nice Sunday School reg

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Thanks for the critique Davis. Strickland is a big fan of the works of Leibniz. He also has no real concept of what atheism is. He, like many others, tend to see atheism as a denial of what is “obvious” to them, rather than a lack of belief in the existence of god(s). This alone demonstrates (to me) that he is not open minded enough to be a “good” philosopher.

Leibniz, with his “Principle of Sufficient Reason” deduces that as God is perfect there must be a logic explanation for why He created the Universe and why it is the way it is. He even “solved” the Problem of Evil by suggesting that the least amount of evil was required to make the world as good as it is. Voltaire came along a few years after Leibniz and destroyed those simplistic ideas in his book “Candide”.

Strickland would also appear to be rather dismissive of scientific reasons for our existence. I suggest that this is because a theist just cannot conceive of what a Universe without their god would look like. Their minds cannot allow them to be “free thinkers” because it is only nourished by information with a religious bias. They cannot stand outside (their Plato’s Cave) to observe the world because they only understand the god-did-it version.

This is what a philosopher must be able to do. As Hegel said, the study of philosophy is but the introduction to philosophy.  If Strickland cannot get past Leibniz or is not aware what Kant meant by existence not being a predicate or see the flawed induction “proof” of Premontval’s argument then, like W.L Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument, I cannot take them seriously.

[Unseen]

Davis wrote:

There clearly aren’t any comment sections allowed as this guy would have been philosophically flayed alive.

It strikes me as one of the many variants of the ontological proof. Ho hum.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

The first 23 seconds of the final video are just BAD. I keep playing it!!

[Matt]

reasonable religious belief

How’s that for an oxymoron?

[Strega]

Thanks, Reg! (Had device probs)

[Author]

Posts