BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME.

"Begin at the beginning,and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Lewis Carroll, 1832-1896)

Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked."Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat."I don't know," Alice answered."Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

"So long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation. "Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone. "Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in my life!"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Australia

I am diagonally parked in a parallel universe. Like Arthur Dent from "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy", if you do not have a Babel Fish in your ear this blog will be completely unintelligible to you and will read something like this: "boggle, google, snoggle, slurp, slurp, dingleberry to the power of 10". Fortunately, those who have had the Babel Fish inserted in their ear, will understood this blog perfectly. If you are familiar with this technology, you will know that the Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation. It excretes energy in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said; or in this case, what was read. The Babel Fish, thanks to scientific research, reverses the problem defined by its namesake in the Tower of Babel, where a deity was supposedly inspired to confuse the human race by making them unable to understand each other.

"DIFFICILE EST SATURAM NON SCRIBERE"

Beepbeepitsme has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts.

Subscribe to BEEP! BEEP! IT'S ME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Secular Humanism VS Christianity



Evangelical Christian apologist William Lane Craig debates humanist atheist lawyer Eddie Tabash at Pepperdine University, February 8, 1999.

Secular humanism is a
humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice and specifically rejects rituals and ceremonies as a means to affirm a life stance.

Christian Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity. The word "apologetic" comes from the Greek word apologia, which means in defense of.

Eddie Tabash: "After a lifetime of spiritual search, I have concluded that the best evidence, to date, makes it much more likely than not that there are no supernatural beings involved in our universe and no God or gods."

William Lane Craig: "The gospels are not only trustworthy documents in general, but as we look at some of the most important aspects of Jesus in the gospels, like his radical personal claims, his miracles, his trial and crucifixion, and his resurrection, their historical veracity shines through."

See what you think after listening to the debate between Craig and Tabash.

LINKS: ~


"Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?"
Friedrich Nietzsche

Link

13 Comments:

Anonymous lost cause said...

Hello, how are you? I really want to know. People like us are thinkers, but let us not forget we are also people with feelings and those are valid as well. we can have great thoughts, but we need a great life as life. And I care about your life. a most remarkable person.



I was thinking early this morning (I normally read until I fall asleep). I went through all the major philosophers in history (it was a page on wikipedia) and their different schools of thought.



I wanted to see which ones I related to the most. Before Christ came, I cannot really fault any of them, but the surprising thing is a lot of them came close to actually comprehending God. But no wonder, I read in Ecclesiastes that “he has put eternity in the hearts of men” and also genesis says “and men began to call on the name of the lord”



Plato attempted to transcend this reality and a lot of his writing sees him reaching for something other than what we see. His dear student Aristotle rejected most of that and only concentrated on what he could perceive with his 5 physical senses. That is why as much I respect Aristotle as the father of the scientific method, I cannot take everything he says at face value. When men reject God, they are rejecting truth; so how much of the lie is mixed in what they are saying?



So how about the philosophers after Christ, especially the ones from the 19th century to now when philosophy as a driving force really took off and the rise of modern thought (all restraints are thrown off!). Are there any people I try to listen to? If we can never arrive at truth (as some say) how close did these guys get to it?



The closest that any of them came was Nietzsche surprisingly. He asked the honest questions that few dared ask, though he was clearly running away from the light. But he was a former seminary student so he encountered God before running away in the opposite direction. Eventually became mad.



Kiekergaard did speak of his relationship with Christ but I am tired of existentialists being all about the subjective reality they are interpreting. There is objective Truth, and even though our relationship to that Truth is important (“who do you say I am?” He asked peter), Truth Himself does not need our interpretation of Him for His empirical validity. All these philosophers do a great job of asking questions but if they ignore the One in the center of the candlesticks, then they will be missing the important connections they can make though Him.



Schopenhauer and Kant were a bit correct, but looking at things from a short sighted perspective.



Now do I sound as if I understand everything I just wrote? Who am I fooling? I am still a monkey trying to crawl out of the mire, according to Darwin.



Ha! Fools! God looks down from His Holy Throne and laughs at the pretensions of these creations of His. This creations who deny their Creator and then run around chasing their tails.



Oh yeah, I forgot to say this. We need to kick it soon. Go have a few brews and chew that fat and abuse that muse. What day do you choose?



;-)

14/9/06 12:47 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "feelings and those are valid as well"

Feelings are not evidence of god anymore than feelings are evidence of tikki tikki tembo.

RE: all the wikipedia philosophers.

Evidence of people thinking about the existence of a god is not evidence of the god's existence. Or the egyptians thinking about RA, would have to be considered evidence of the existence of RA.

RE: "I am still a monkey trying to crawl out of the mire, according to Darwin."

Your claim, not mine and not Darwin's. We are hominids.
Fossil Hominids
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

RE: "Ha! Fools! God looks down from His Holy Throne and laughs at the pretensions of these creations of His."

He does? And the evidence for this bit of news is? I must have missed the email.

RE: "Go have a few brews and chew that fat and abuse that muse."

You are free to "chew the fat" here and I prefer not to abuse anyone, including muses.

14/9/06 9:29 am  
Blogger Jones said...

Why do they feel this impellent need to convert us every time? Do u actually know any Atheist buzzing around xtian blogs trying to convince them that god doesn't exist? We're often accused of elitarism but their presumption is much worse, Do u really think what u wrote was clever and could convince us that god is there?
On one thing I think u're right, you are still a monkey.

14/9/06 6:35 pm  
Blogger Daniel said...

They are interesting, the words of the above commenter. I notice there is no mention of the 'God' who creates malformed or intellectually handicapped babies, cancer, tsunamis, priests and nuns who molest, droughts, floods, earthquakes, etc. Funny thing that!

15/9/06 8:38 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE daniel

But of course these horrible things were "created" by satan. (mad evil laugh follows)- Bhhahahahahahah

Oooops, no they weren't.

"I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

15/9/06 9:59 am  
Anonymous ted said...

It took me a couple of sittings to get through it, but that was a fun debate Beep, thanks...:)

As to the comments, oh dear...

15/9/06 2:49 pm  
Blogger SteveG said...

I had to respond to one of Craig's papers at a meeting of the American Philosophical Association a few years back. the paper was a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the relativist notion of time to save Newton's picture of space and time being the sensoria of God. The argument was deeply flawed and the paper was 30 pages, far too much to read in the allotted 20 minutes. I sent him my comments before the session so he could review them before the talk and that wonderful, decent Christian went at the time of the talk simply omitted the sections of his argument that he knew I was pointing out the deep flaws in, saying that he simply didn't have the time to explain those sections.

I should have gotten some sense of this when before the session a notable philosopher of physics, seeing that my job was to respond to Craig, asked me what I thought of his argument. Trying to be tactful, I responded, "It's interesting." He got a pained look on hi face and asked me, "In what possible way?"

15/9/06 9:21 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE steveg:
"Trying to be tactful, I responded, "It's interesting." He got a pained look on his face and asked me, "In what possible way?"

Yes, I can understand his ambivalence to the notion that a theological argument would be "interesting." lol

Religious arguments seem so fanciful to me. But it is not for the lack of imagination that I am an atheist; I just don't confuse speculation and imagination with that which might be literally true.

And religious believers seems to use so much "woo woo language" which is emotionally satisfying but semantically so imprecise that it is impossible to tie them down to what they really mean.

Religious arguments also seem to have a very fuzzy delineation between that which is meant in a figurative sense and that which is to be taken literally.

So the arguments, at least as they appear to me, seem to be mostly from an emotional point of view; rather than anything concrete which can be tested for veracity or for falsifiability.

All of which I find frustrating.

It also concerns me that many modern believers seem to doubt their faith to such an extent that they attempt to legitimize and validate their beliefs, by piggy-backing modern scientific theories.

Especially when the acknowledgment of many of these scientific theories in times past, would have seen them with a red hot poker up the bum and being rotated on a spit in the public square.

I guess I am just a grumpy, old woman. Actually, no guess work is required, I AM a grumpy old woman. ;)

16/9/06 5:22 pm  
Blogger SINCRONIA said...

(Beep said) ”….I just don't confuse speculation and imagination with that which might be literally true…

….So the arguments, at least as they appear to me, seem to be mostly from an emotional point of view; rather than anything concrete which can be tested for veracity or for falsifiability….

….It also concerns me that many modern believers seem to doubt their faith to such an extent that they attempt to legitimize and validate their beliefs, by piggy-backing modern scientific theories….”


You say so well Beep. I have always said too, not to confuse –fantasy- with the evident reality…. But, as it has happen with me, there is still the necessity of FANTASY, as occurs with the necessity of ART. I know you will say, you have a rich fantasy and imagination dimension too that perfectly differs with evident (quantitative) reality. That’s me too, but not everyone. Many others FEEL the necessity to –believe- That’s why I admire your respect to others believes (as when you told me not to try convincing my friend of anything)

In the very special case of ART, this has been troubled a lot since Science and Technology have monopolized the –TRUTH- with the evidence and method argues, and become reduced in many cases to simple entertainment and ornament, because the only way to reach true was the scientific…

In contrast with religious, you have to agree with me that the Scientific TRUTH is a –CONVENTIONAL AGREEMENT, opened to keep on seeking and explaining the deepest mysteries of the Universe. Just as feelings have been the very best way (with technique learning) to become a great ARTIST. (I’m actually looking for another via, but no success yet)

I often wonder at some artist kind of wisdom, when there have been no rigorists Scientific application. (Intuitive knowledge) The same wonder, we can have for the magnificent power of mind in the, often diminish, placebo effect. Is almost magic used by shamans, etc.

I would really appreciate to have your opinion about “The ecology of magic” by David Abram. (http://primitivism.com/ecology-magic.htm) This chapter excerpt is from David Abram's Spell of the Sensuous, and to do it without the tikki tikki satirizing language that confuses me. Thanks and I’ll keep on reading you, bye


Bye the way, you said
“...I guess I am just a grumpy, old woman. Actually, no guess work is required, I AM a grumpy old woman“(I always thought you were a teen age grumpy gay taking the identity of an old grumpy woman)

17/9/06 3:53 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE sincronia:

Ty for your long post. I do enjoy it when people express themselves so well in a comment.

I think many people must think I am gay as I support peoples' right to be gay, so perhaps they think that must mean I am gay as well.

I have a strong sense of individual liberty. I dislike discrimination against groups of people because of their sexuality, gender, race, colour or creed.

People can't change their sexuality (though some religious groups claim they can).

Also, people are born with certain physical characteristics like race and gender, so it seems ridiculous to discriminate against people because of something they had no choice of in the first place.

I also support people's right to be religious, but I do not support religious beliefs being the mouthpiece of government.

But primarily, I support the use of reason and the scientific method which examines ALL of these issues and does not make a decision based on faith.

17/9/06 1:04 pm  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

Basically, I support people's individual right to be superstitious, but I rebel against those who attempt to force me, through law, to be superstitious as well.

17/9/06 1:13 pm  
Blogger SINCRONIA said...

Yes, ok I agree with you.

About the -gay stuff- I was just kidding.... you can't blame me, Was just a way to know something more personal about you.

19/9/06 2:44 am  
Blogger beepbeepitsme said...

RE sincronia:

I don't mind. I am neither offended nor delighted if someone thinks I am gay. Some people are gay, some people are not. :)

21/9/06 6:18 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home