Atheist dogma

I found the 'aliens' story somewhat amusing. You're right. It is freedom that allows me to defer (perhaps forever) the choice of 'believing' or not, in aliens. I can choose just to find it 'somewhat amusing'.

Yes, relying on the one all important TRUTH, leaves one free to ignore other 'mysteries', or not. I think its about perspective.

Jeff, a very accurate evaluation of the dogmatism of atheism, a theme which was a central theme of the movie "Expelled".
The Truth really does set us free.

Wonderful insight-- thanks for your discussion of Catholics' freedom.

Great point Jeff. Our freedom even extends to major questions such as: would Christ have come in the flesh if Adam had never sinned? St Thomas said "No" whereas Blessed John Duns Scotus said "Yes". This is a huge question, with important implications that the Church leaves open to us. Dogma leaves us free to pursue important questions using our reason and God's revelation without wasting our time on other issues that have been defined, such as the Lord's divinity.

Very good points.

God is not confined by either time or space. There is no reason I can think of that his creatures should be limited to humans and angels. With growing evidence that terrestrial sized extra solar planets may be common and given the vast number of stars - 100 billion in a galaxy with possibly over 100 billion galaxies...such a vast place for only one tiny planet.

Mark Pilon

First off, Expelled was exaggerated make-believe. You fail to do your job or do it properly and you get punished. That happens to most people.

"As an atheist I was also not free to disbelieve in evolution and Darwinism specifically"

Sure you are. I know atheists who believe in intelligent design by aliens, are agnostic on the issue, or simply do not care.

And nobody persecutes them. Really.

And Jeff, lying is a sin even when done on Jesus' behalf.

If you paid attention in 10th grade history, you'd realize that Stalin, an atheist, disbelieved in "Darwinism". It also appears that a lot of Chinese atheists in that time period disbelieved in "Darwinism"

Hell, if you read Steven Pinker's Blank Slate or Darwinian Left by Singer, you'd know that a lot of leftist atheists while mouthing their belief in "Darwinism" rejected in practice.

As a Catholic, you're not allowed to rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ, believe that Jesus is a slave to Allah, or embrace a sola scriptura approach to preaching? Why? because certain belief systems are simply incompatible.

Ah Jeff, you give me inspiration in my on-going debate with a fellow anti-theistic science alumnus.

Oh, UAB, we're all free to accept or reject the dogmas of our respective beliefs; Catholics are simply aware of the eternal rewards or punishments of our choices.

I know atheists who believe in intelligent design by aliens

Altar Boy,

How did the aliens come about? Evolution? Creation?

Ah UAB...
I knew Jeff would dangle this little tidbit in front of you and you would be unable to resist. As usual though, your argumentation is selective.

Athiests have a tendancy to be unconcerned about the created order and how it came to be. They do share in a common belief with communism that there is nothing inherently special or drastically different about the human species. Everyone, I presume know of Darwin's "Origin of Species" but less know about his "Descent of Man" which began the process of 'science' known as eugenics (brought to full bearing by Darwin's cousin Thomas Dalton). It underscores the danger inherent in the atheistic anthropology and cosmology: if the created order is the result of multiple and accidental chemical reactions, then their is no assigned purpose nor reason to the created order other than what I as an individual or we as a society wish to give it. Morality (for lack or a better word) and ethics are fluid are purely situational; the ends can, do, and must justify the means. Creation becomes an end in and of itself and life a largely disposable commodity that should be 'wanted' for it to come into existence. IN this world view abortion is fine (as long as I suppose you are not on the receiving end of it), eugenics tacitly approved (read Margaret Sanger's works...if you can get them), and the ends justifiable, soinasfar as they are not exceptionally violent (say..like the Holocaust).

You like to meander into the "what-if" world of your 'historians" who maintain that religion is the root of all evil. Surely, many have and do use religion as a backdrop to justify their own criminal behavior. Some religions can even point to their sacred texts to approve such behavior. What makes the New Testament unique is that its adherents cannot use it to justify the wiping out of peoples (even though some tried) specifically because the main tenet of our faith lies in that their is something unique about humanity, something that despite its rebellious nature, that was worth saving. An athiest would find this to be utter nonsense because it so clashes with their athropology. Athiest need creation to be accidental (it must be a basic tenet of their faith), they need man to be nothing special, they need morality to be fluid...because when one supplants God with their own image, there can be no rivals to the center of the universe (namely, themselves). It is why, in my experience, most athiest I know are horribly unhappy, petulent, and argumentative people. It is like the old kids' game "king of the hill"..always have shove away anyone or anything that would topple your temporary rule. It must be a miserable way to live.

WE'll not even go into the science of evolution, which like global warming, has holes large enough to fly the space shuttle through. This makes the adeherence of athiest to this theory largely the same as those who profess a faith in God...a faith which has elements that cannot be explained...the only difference being that our unexplainable elements come from our inability to comprehend that which is not subject to time and space and your comes from a lack of ability to explain that which is subject to time and space.

Sorry...shoulf be Thomas Galton...not Dalton

David- I have no idea. Look them up and ask them.

"Athiests have a tendancy to be unconcerned about the created order and how it came to be."

Yet, so many scientists are atheists and researching these issues. Additionally, Christians and other superstitutionists are equally blaise about it. They chalk it up to GODDIDIT or GODDIDITINSIXDAYS.

"Morality (for lack or a better word) and ethics are fluid are purely situational;"

Yes because Catholicism is rock solid on their morality. Nope, its not. Even it has been dragged kicking and screaming into our vastly improved, but still tragically flawed modern age.

"They do share in a common belief with communism that there is nothing inherently special or drastically different about the human species. "

It's not. Stalin's crimes even his attempted genocides, have been done in the past. Just check out the old testament.
"I knew Jeff would dangle this little tidbit in front of you and you would be unable to resist. As usual though, your argumentation is selective."

Wow, I got missing for weeks, if not months, yet you all were concerned enough about my return to have contigency plans. I feel loved.

You know, it's like Jeff informed me about his slacking readership, and I appeared to boost it back up. Could this cliched atheist to born Christian could be yanking your chain. We'll see.

"read Margaret Sanger's works...if you can get them"

You know, despite the conspiratal tone of this line, it was rather easy to locate her works. You can check some of them out here (http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/)

"You like to meander into the "what-if" world of your 'historians" who maintain that religion is the root of all evil."

None of "my historians" assert souch a thing. Hell, not even Dawkins has done such a thing. Stop attacking straw whores.

As for my "historians", my historians as you so call them are recognized professionals published by the best university presses, in the best journals, and have prestigious positions in academia.

You are a rapid responder for a bunch of self published blogs and lack the ability to successfully defend against a troll whose learning disablities render him almost incomprehensable.

By that I mean, if you're so smart, why isn't Harvard knocking down your door?

"What makes the New Testament unique is that its adherents cannot use it to justify the wiping out of peoples (even though some tried) specifically because the main tenet of our faith lies in that their is something unique about humanity, something that despite its rebellious nature, that was worth saving. An athiest would find this to be utter nonsense because it so clashes with their athropology"

Again, updated your historiography. Several atheists have published works arguing the same thing. Using science and evolutionary fact, not stories of a zombie and threats of hell. Try Marc Hauser Moral Minds, Shermer's Science of Good and evil, and Pinker's blank slate.

"Athiest need creation to be accidental (it must be a basic tenet of their faith), "

Nope, I again have met atheists who believe in a non-divine intelligent design theory.

"WE'll not even go into the science of evolution, which like global warming, has holes large enough to fly the space shuttle through. "

What holes exist in evolutionary theory? I'd love to hear them.

" This makes the adeherence of athiest to this theory largely the same as those who profess a faith in God...a faith which has elements that cannot be explained"

You know you're right when your opponent accuses you of being the same thing they are :)). Let me guess, atheism is a religion too?

"most athiest I know are horribly unhappy, petulent, and argumentative people"

Yeah, people get annoyed when you can't spell their beliefs right. It's rude.

Ye-ouch! People are bringing their claws out on this topic, aren't they?

"Yet, so many scientists are atheists and researching these issues. Additionally, Christians and other superstitutionists are equally blaise about it. They chalk it up to GODDIDIT or GODDIDITINSIXDAYS."

Thanks for the money quote!! They are wanting to study the development of the created order but do not delve into questions regarding how something came from nothing, because they cannot without betraying their pre-disposed faith. And yeah, UAB/Hoodlum...atheism has all the traits of the classical defintion of religion. Ironic, huh?

"None of "my historians" assert souch a thing. Hell, not even Dawkins has done such a thing. Stop attacking straw whores.

But you have quoted them repeatedly in this blog as justification of your own disposition against religion, cited them as forming said opinions, and as being the intellectual foundation for your own bashing of religious types. So which is it? Either you are a poor representative of their thought or they actually do have such thoughts. Can't have it both ways.

Yes because Catholicism is rock solid on their morality. Nope, its not. Even it has been dragged kicking and screaming into our vastly improved, but still tragically flawed modern age.

By whom? Cite examples.

As for my "historians", my historians as you so call them are recognized professionals published by the best university presses, in the best journals, and have prestigious positions in academia."

I know, how dare I question your clergy! I am no more impressed with your clergy than you are with mine. If you want to get into discussions about incestuous societies, let's have a talk about academia where a pre-disposed dogma exists and those who do not adhere to it are excommunicated from the fold...where only like minded toadies are brought up and any real discussion of ideas is cut down with ruthless force. Atheism has its clergy, its dogma and doctrine, and its penalties for non-adherence.

"You are a rapid responder for a bunch of self published blogs and lack the ability to successfully defend against a troll whose learning disablities render him almost incomprehensable.

By that I mean, if you're so smart, why isn't Harvard knocking down your door?"

Because I am not a left wing ideologue. And that I am not successful...what would constitute success? Your conversion? But then again, I am not trolling athiest websites am I? Hmmmm. Makes you wonder. BTW, I am dyslexic, so let's not use the learning disability crutch.

"What holes exist in evolutionary theory? I'd love to hear them."

Good...an open mind! Start on researching the problems presented by proteins (A UNC article on it is pretty good), and there is no direct link between homosapiens and what was before it. Ther's a start.

"You know you're right when your opponent accuses you of being the same thing they are :)). Let me guess, atheism is a religion too?"

That is a selective reading of that paragraph (notice you left out the ending of said paragraph as it dissproves what you said.)
And yes, sorry dude, atheism has all the classic traits of a formal religion. And while, to my knowledge, the USSC has not declared it such, they have declared secular humanism to be a religion. (Torcaso V. Watkins, 1961)

"Yeah, people get annoyed when you can't spell their beliefs right. It's rude."

Oh, sorry, spelling patrol! You come in with UAB and that's not rude? I know, since you are your own god, you can arbitrate what is right and wrong. Silly me.

I'll beat you the punch UAB...I know some do not consider what Justice Black wrote to fully part of the decision. It seems to be a matter of how one wants to take his writing.

And, Margaret Sanger's work are no longer in print, but thanks to the internet are available. But I am old-fashioned, I,like the feel of good hardcover book in my hand...keep forgetting the internet.

Please update my blog details..from the old one..

"Thanks for the money quote!! They are wanting to study the development of the created order but do not delve into questions regarding how something came from nothing, because they cannot without betraying their pre-disposed faith. And yeah, UAB/Hoodlum...atheism has all the traits of the classical defintion of religion. Ironic, huh?"

Uhh, there are entire fields of science trying to figure out "how something came from nothing" like abiogenesis in biology and the people dealing with the big bang in astronomy. Many of those people you'll find are atheists.

"But you have quoted them repeatedly in this blog as justification of your own disposition against religion, cited them as forming said opinions, and as being the intellectual foundation for your own bashing of religious types. So which is it? Either you are a poor representative of their thought or they actually do have such thoughts. Can't have it both ways."

Sure I can have it both ways. It's called synthesis. I've taken their ideas, the ideas of other people I have read but not cited here, some personal experience, merged it with some independent (in theory) thought and boom- my opinion.

It is hard work and a heavy burden to bare. I wish I could outsource morality to some unaccountable divine being, but I can't do it.

"Because I am not a left wing ideologue. And that I am not successful...what would constitute success? Your conversion? But then again, I am not trolling athiest websites am I? Hmmmm. Makes you wonder. BTW, I am dyslexic, so let's not use the learning disability crutch."

Ahh, I see. The liberals are conspiring against you. Are the illuminati involved?

As for my trolling, I've portrayed myself as anything as a self-absorbed ass who likes to annoy people.

"let's have a talk about academia where a pre-disposed dogma exists and those who do not adhere to it are excommunicated from the fold...where only like minded toadies are brought up and any real discussion of ideas is cut down with ruthless force. "

Plagarizing Ernest Zundel and David Irving's arguments on why they are oppressed is bad form.

I don't use my LD's as a crutch as often as I am suppose to or can. In this case, I used to them to belittle you. I mean seriously, for all your bluster, you can barely hold forth with a trollwith ADHD so bad, it took him a decade to figure out how to masturbate.

And that my friend, is why academia isn't knocking.
"Good...an open mind! Start on researching the problems presented by proteins"

I am vaguely familar with the protein issue. Now if you could spin a scenario by which it would undermine all the rest of evolutionary theory, included the proven parts, I'll go to mass.

"atheism has all the classic traits of a formal religion."

Yet again, for all the angst you all direct toward atheism, you turn around claim that we are no different.

"the USSC has not declared it such, they have declared secular humanism to be a religion."

Well, if USSC declares it true it must be true. Like Roe V Wade. Now, remember secular humanism and atheism are not the same. Many atheists are secular humanists. I am not. Hell, I have only a vague notion of it.

"You come in with UAB and that's not rude"

No, it's an accurate description of me. Of course it is rude. That is the entire point of the name.

" know, since you are your own god, you can arbitrate what is right and wrong."

If I was my own god, I wouldn't be an atheist.

As for that argument, B16 kills a kitten every time you use a Jack Chick Tract argument.

I have written several responses and deleted them to UAB, as his stated intent is to be a jerk...I would be wasting my time. So, UAB, you want to rile other people and call it a purpose? What a sad existance. If I were an atheist, I would like to think I wouldn't have the time to day to intentionally make others miserable because I would want to take what little time I have on this orb being joy filled and happy...soaking every experience of contentment I could find. Because, were I an atheist, I would realize the only thing I leave behind is a memory (and worm food)and I would want to be fondly remembered as someone worth being a friend, a spouse, a parent...you know a great guy. That you are choosing to take what little existance you believe you have to fritter it away on making others as miserable as you are...well that's just tragic. Why does it bother you others believe in God? Why should you care? If you were truly happy and content in your atheism you would have no time for here.

As far as any intellectual arguments go, I am afraid the time and argument will be lost on someone who is more interested in bloviating (whilst accusing any who disagree with him as doing such) as you do. It has been mentioned that we are better off praying for you than trying to reason with you. I for one, will no longer feed your troll instincts, no matter how shrill you get. You want to chalk it up as a victory? Go for it. But as the old song lines go..."Who ever thought this would be the situation? One more complication should be neither here nor there. I wish I had it in me not to care. Let him spill out his hate till he knows he deserted, there's no point wasting time preaching to the perverted"

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would strongly suspect that atheist polemicists have developed a strategy to bore everyone they disagreed with to death. Every time I hear the name "Dawkins" my eyes glaze over.

"Synthesis" doesn't mean what you think it means, UAB. You've described "synopsis".