“The fool had said in his heart ; there is no God”
Great book that it is the Bible is once again spot on.
Only a fool, read dunciehead, will claim that there is no God and to add nonsense on nonsense will go on to claim that he or she is a rational person.
University trained Brains (UTBs) who are indoctrinated into left wing ideology and devoid of the capacity for critical thought may not be able to follow the following simple arguments. Others will so here goes :
If human beings are made only of matter i.e are entirely physical we cannot have free will.
This is so because like all matter all that we are and all that we do will be completely determined by the laws of physics. This is inescapable. All matter is subject to the laws of physics
If we are fully determined by the laws of physics then consciousness or one’s concept that one exists will be an epiphenomenon produced by our thoughts and our thoughts will in turn be produced by the chemical reactions in our brains. These chemical reactions are determined solely by the laws of physics.
To repeat : if we are wholly material we cannot have free will or volition of thought i.e originate our thoughts. Instead, “we” (the perception that we exist) will be epiphenomena; i.e our concept that we exist will an effect produced by our thoughts – the product of our thoughts .
In this scenario our thoughts, produced by the laws of physics, come first and then produce the concept of consciousness and that we exist as sentient beings.
The above is a fundamentally different concept from what is presently held and assumed i.e that we exist as sentient beings and produce our thoughts by a deliberate process which we guide.
Without free will and volition of thought it is impossible for us to claim the ability to reason . As usual atheism the ultimate nonsense is unable to produce coherent arguments.
Somebody needs to show Richard Dawkins – the high priest of nonsense – the above
xxxxxx E N D S xxxxxx
Interview: Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith
Updated March 27, 201211:00 AM ET
Published March 26, 20123:39 PM ET
Last Thursday, I spoke with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in a recorded interview at the NPR studios in Washington, D.C. That meeting was suggested by the American arm of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, in the wake of a post I wrote here at 13.7 last month.
In my original post, I questioned whether Dawkins was the best choice to be headline speaker at the March 24 Reason Rally in Washington, given that one of its goals was to change negative stereotypes about atheists.
Dawkins arrived at the interview not having read my post, which I found odd given that the Foundation had sought our meeting based on my writing. But we went on to have a cordial 23-minute conversation that I hope you will listen to in its entirety.
Among the highlights for me, Dawkins reiterated his well-known stance that evidence-based thinking is the only “respect-worthy” approach to the world. Unapologetic about his willingness to label as “ridiculous” beliefs rooted in faith rather than evidence, he came across as utterly confident in his ability to suss out courageous versus self-deluded ways of thinking.
In insisting that he does not insult people who believe in God, only their beliefs, Dawkins tries for a distinction I find problematic.
On his blog last year, Dawkins called a person named Minor Vidal a “fool” for his expression of thanks to God after surviving a deadly plane crash. (To be fair, Dawkins called “billions” of other people fools, too, in the same post.)
‘Woodstock For Atheists’: A Moment For Nonbelievers March 23, 2012
‘Religion For Atheists’: God, What Is He Good For? March 13, 2012
Dawkins told me that if he insulted any person, he regrets it. But this example shows how hard it is, in practice rather than theory, to aim harsh language only at a person’s belief, and not at the person.
Another example comes from Saturday’s rally. There, Dawkins noted his incredulity when meeting people who believe a Communion wafer turns into the body of Christ during the Eucharist. He then urged his followers to “mock” and “ridicule” that. (He says this 13 minutes into the video, though it’s best to watch the whole thing.) His exact words after describing the Catholic ritual, were “Mock them. Ridicule them.” So by “them” did he intend to refer to Catholic beliefs, not Catholic people? In context, it doesn’t seem so to me.
How much does that distinction matter? When it comes to religion, does demeaning a person’s belief not also demean the person?