- either atheism or theism is true
- if atheism is true then there is no objective standard by which to measure human value and no duty to protect innocent humans.
- If theism is true, then a foundation for the intrinsic and objective value of human individuals exists as well as a duty to protect humans.
- Individual humans are objectively and intrinsically valuable and it is our duty to protect individual humans.
- therefore atheism is false.
Thought of the day:
Memes are good conversation starters…But NOT good arguments.
Unrelated Articles of the day:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-liberal-gets-religion-1473722200 (you do not need to subscribe to WSJ to read this, just type the title “A Liberal ‘Gets’ Religion” in Google search)
Coercion and cultural bias against conservative religious groups?
-U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report- http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Peaceful-Coexistence-09-07-16.PDF
-New American Bar Association Rules- http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/08/12/briefing-08-12-16/
I found This Article to be helpful on comparing the oft-cited atrocities of the west in the name of “Christianity” to the holy wars of Islam. there is a stark difference between Islam and Christianity that detractors of the west and Christianity should take seriously if they want to be intellectually honest.
I also recommend Paul Copan’s book Is God A Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God for an honest discussion about the God of Christianity as well as a rebuttal of many arguments against God by the “new Atheists”.
Interesting article. A lot of it was over my head but it is always nice to re-confirm infighting and disagreement among naturalists. Scientists dont have the corner on truth. Science is a term broadly used today to mean “truth” (scientism). This is false however as science is merely a methodology that provides raw data. Scientists are humans who have just as many biases and dogmas as any joe on the street. The author notes how “evolution” has been used by scientists as a method of gaining power and advancing political agendas throughout recent history. On a side note, if only physical explanations of human consciousness and behavior are available (as naturalism postulates), then I would like the author to offer an alternative-more plausible option than evolutionary psychology.
“You don’t “believe” in evolution…” “… you either understand it or you don’t” -Unknown This is a silly bumper sticker-like meme. It is not only condescending but also presents equivocal language and a false dilemma. The equivocation comes in the word “evolution”. “Evolution” has different meanings that should be described, however, the nature of a […]
The format did not turn out great because I took it from a word document and I am too lazy to re-format it right now. -Preface- Jones, your email to me has had me in deep thought for the last month or so. Beyond that, I have been interested in the differences between LDS and […]
A philosophical response: