gdp's Comments

Leaving Faith : Interview: Former Atheist Richard Morgan

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:18:16 +0000

>> PB: There is nothing at all remarkable about a Christian who used to by an atheist. Every Christian is a "former atheist".....Christian believers rarely, if ever, understand the difference. I would say that agnosticism is probably the default position, and many notable atheists would agree. When we say atheist, we mean someone with a disbelief, not merely a lack of belief - a "hard" atheist, if you will. A person who was actively atheist, promoting arguments against theism, is not a child without convictions. The former atheist mentioned here is of the second type, and that type IS remarkable. >>PB: This type of atheist lacks belief because they have critically examined their previous faith or the dominant faiths of their community. Not all atheists formerly had faith. This is even the case with Morgan, I think. >>PB: The more fundamentalist the Christian, the more ignorant they were found to be about the content, basis and background to their beliefs, including what is written in their holy scriptures. I don't think so. I'd say that liberal believers probably know much less about the Bible than their fundamentalist counterparts. Fundamentalists may lack true skepticism, while liberal Christians may willingly entertain doubts, or even not truly believe. It sounds like you have a grudge against fundamentalists. >> PB: Progression from default or apathetic atheism to religious belief may be two-way. In this case, it was progress from default to active atheism to faith. >>PB: On the other hand, progression from religious belief to an informed loss of belief appears to be a one-way street. Not so in my case. I went from agnostic scientist to believer to unbeliever and back. Many people, once they get informed, still find faith more likely than unbelief. >> PB: Informed atheists do not regress back to their previous religious beliefs unless they suffer from some kind of brain impairment: Actually, I think that most atheists suffer an impairment of their intuition - they override their intuitions that God may exist with intellectual arguments. Or as scripture might say, they "suppress the knowledge of God." >> PB: There do not appear to be any exceptions to this rule. You are not looking for them.

Leaving Faith : Book cover design 04 - the open door

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:31:56 +0000

It's just a cover! I'll be excited when there's something complete inside!

Leaving Faith : Books on Leaving Faith

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:46:11 +0000

OK, enabled the Intense Debate plugin for comments. I prefer it to Disqus, but they all have faults! Thanks for commenting.

Whole Reason : Stick or Carrot in Gospel Preaching?

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:08:18 +0000

WA...I'm not following you. Preaching is by definition motivational. What other methods are there besides carrot or stick? If you want to be purely 'informational' you still have to decide if u inform merely about god's goodness, or if you include his justice and mercy. The crucifixion makes no sense without our universal guilt and the coming day of judgement. Read the book of Romans, Paul's extended explanation of the gospel. The first three chapters are about one thing...the guilt of all mankind. That's all stick.

Whole Reason : Liberals and Moralism

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:46:01 +0000

>> ROBIN: I imagine Seeker’s great‐grandparents doing similar concern trolling This is the problem with liberalism - living in the realm of imagination instead of fact. In actuality, my family has been involved in both environmentalism and feminism since before I was born. But the hateful, bitter, anti-masculine feminism went too far in establishing women's 'rights', as the pro-gay lobby does today, imo. >> ROBIN: Seeker, your opposition to equal rights disqualifies you from any authority on morality, I don't oppose equal rights, I only oppose the tacet approval of an unnatural dysfunction as normal. It's bad for children and society. So is abortion/infanticide. Your accusation is like me saying "because you oppose polygamy/polyamory/bestiality (consensual), you have no room to talk about morality since you are against equal rights." I would heartily approve of such a statement, however, applied to those who are pro-choice.

Whole Reason : Science Supports Hetero Parenting

Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:59:37 +0000

Rather than using the genetic fallacy to dismiss arguments (the guy works for XXX, so he is biased and therefore his conclusions don't follow), we should look at the data. In this case, the claims made are not from one small study, but an analysis of many studies done. In some cases, perhaps the original samples were not big enough to be conclusive, but they may actually be right, and deserve more investigation. Dismissing them as spurious because they are small is a dangerous game of bias to play - it shows that you are more interested in dismissing their conclusions than the truth.

Whole Reason : Another University study finds Fox News fair compared to liberally biased MSM

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:06:35 +0000

Not so. See these results (note: LIBERALS trusted the other outlets, but because liberals are a minority in our country, the MAJORITY of Americans, meaning conservatives, most moderates, and some liberals, trust FOX.) : Fox leads for trust (Jan 1020) This report shows NPR as most trusted, but the questions cover ALL of the programming, not just the news, which is why fox shows up as more conservative. PBS THE MOST TRUSTED AND UNBIASED SOURCE FOR NEWS AHEAD OF FOX NEWS CHANNEL, CNN AND OTHER COMMERCIAL NETWORKS (June 2010) As you can clearly see by the poll below (May 2010), CNN and FOX are neck and neck for the lion's share of trust, the other networks barely registering. The poll below is interesting because it shows breakdown by political affiliation, with no surprises. I think CNN is the only MSM other than FOX that has an honest and fair approach to news, though it does lean liberal on some things. The 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll Now will you please move on?

Whole Reason : Another University study finds Fox News fair compared to liberally biased MSM

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:53:04 +0000

Again, objective surveys, as opposed to your quote-mining article, show Fox to the most watched, the most trusted, and the most fair in reporting. I admit, the opinion shows skew right (Hannity, etc), which muddies the water. The sad fact is, the other MSM outlets, even in their news reporting, are often unabashedly left, as opposed to fair and balanced. I don't think that the University studies I cited had the same poor methodology as the other study you cited, I think you just don't like the data.

Whole Reason : Transgender Rights override women's rights

Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:48:48 +0000

Naturally, this is humorous, and you make my point - we can't have signs for every gender-confused variant out there. Those who are truly hermaphrodites get to choose, I suppose. The rest should respect their biology - if you got a weenie, use the boys room. Regarding men being predatory towards men (or women towards women), a separate bathroom won't cure that. That's what gun ownership is for ;)

Vision to America : How Thoroughly Fox News Trounced CNN, MSNBC on Election Night

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:45:10 +0000

At least two university studies have shown Fox News (which does NOT include Beck or Hannity - they are commentary) to be the most fair and balanced compared to other networks. Another University study finds Fox News fair compared to liberally biased MSM

Vision to America : Texas Gov: Social Security is bankrupt and is a Ponzi scheme

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:30:12 +0000

Darrel, Most people (including myself until recently) don't know that Social Security was not designed as a savings vehicle. It was designed in a manner where current monies going in go out to current recipients. The problem is, when you have more recipients than contributors, as was bound to happen when the Baby Booomers retired, since there are so many of them. Pozni schemes work similarly, except that contributors are promised high yields very quickly, but are paid, not on interest yields, but with money from new people coming in after them. Eventually, that pyramid fails because people at the bottom can no longer get paid.

Whole Reason : Why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably not god

Thu, 11 Nov 2010 06:40:43 +0000

I think you need to read it more carefully. 1. JOB 1:13 - The servant *reported* what he thought was God's fire from Heaven - the text does not say that God did it. 2. How is the raid by the Sabeans God's doing? Again, he allowed it, but did not do it. 3. Regarding the wind, again it does not say that God did it, but there is no precedent in scripture for Satan sending wind, so for the sake of argument, let's say you are right. First, regarding these incidents, God does claim some responsibility in Job 2 by saying Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” Of course, it clearly says that Satan afflicted Job with boils. None of this makes God unethical or immoral. And as I've often preached, there are only really two conundrums to which God answers with an appeal to our limited understanding ('mystery') - the case of suffering, and that of predestination. All other mysteries seem to be fully explained. The assumption that in these few cases, we may be unable to grasp things (being finite ourselves) seems reasonable to me, even if it offends the minds of some.

Whole Reason : Why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably not god

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:20:04 +0000

1. Your definition of hyperbole omits a critical fact - it us a literary device to make a point, vs. an exaggeration that is a lie. 2. Isolated incident - you are right, it happened more than once. 3. Killing civilians - I agree with your point, though there are cases when that may be what is required - think Hiroshima. I am not defending it as a common practice, only saying that there are circumstances under which such a thing could be considered just and necessary. You seem to feel there are no such conditions, like those who think that capital punishment, doctor-assisted suicide or abortion are unjust under all circumstances. I respect that but disagree. 4. The Flood of Noah - while that may seem unjust, if God created all mankind, as creator and owner, He has the right, and perhaps even just reasons, for bringing judgment onto humans and their children - because the children, innocent or not, suffer the consequences of their parents' decisions. That argument needs more development, but that's the nut. 5. Job - God did not persecute Job, he allowed Satan to do so. You see very little real difference here, I'm sure, yet the distinction is important from an intellectual and philosophical standpoint.

Whole Reason : Why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably not god

Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:10:13 +0000

Good observation

Whole Reason : Three Types of Reformation

Fri, 5 Nov 2010 20:36:25 +0000

I agree with you - but I'm not sure if these were liberalization of core tenets of these faiths (which, if so, would mean that the core tenets of the faith are erroneous), or if these were just outward perversions of the faith. In the latter case, it would be a restoration, not liberalization. However, as a Christian, I am not surprised that other faiths have errors at their core. I do not assume that the ancients all learned from objective Gods, sorry I did not make that clear - I think that Judaism and Christianity learned from an objective God, while the others only did so through nature and common wisdom - their 'revealed' teachings, I would argue, are erroneous - things like reincarnation, the inferiority of women, their soteriologies (doctrines of salvation). Islam needs to liberalize, but as I've pointed out, there will always be Islamic terrorists because the founder taught and acted like one. Thanks for your comment.

Whole Reason : Why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably not god

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:14:06 +0000

BTW, I'm not so sure that the descendants of Amalek would be considered an ethnicity or race - they may have just been the nth generation of Amalek's family - like the Hatfields or McCoys. All of the the other 'ites' may have all been of essentially the same ethnicity. How's that for an argument against genocide? What constitutes a separate people group? Genetics? Culture? Number of generations?

Whole Reason : Why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably not god

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:09:25 +0000

No, I do not agree that it could be exaggerated. I said that it could be hyperbole or an idiom, not just read with modern, hyper-literal ears that have no idea what the idioms of the times meant. But even if it was NOT hyperbole, I admit that it seems unjust to demand the destruction of another group of people, except to say that, like the demand to kill Isaac, or the Flood of Noah, it may have been just, and it certainly was not prescriptive (i.e. these were one-time or limited actions). I understand that this seems a little contradictory, but I am OK with that ambiguity.

Whole Reason : Why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is probably not god

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:53:12 +0000

I agree, but Christians overlook this, not only for convenience, but because it is viewed as a one time (?) act of punishment for wickedness on a city, but using Israel instead of God's direct hand - unlike Sodom or the Flood of Noah. Hard to defend, definitely. But yes, it could have been an hyperbole on the lines of "totally destroy them!"

WholeReason typepad : Former Atheists: A. N. Wilson

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:39:03 +0000

I know, funny huh? You may be right, perhaps Mr. Wilson did not unshackle himself fully from religion. Or maybe he just came to realize that materialism's limits can never encompass all of reality, esp. beauty and truth. When I think about my return to faith, I too wonder why those specific things were convincing, and not others. I returned for a few reasons, including: 1. Other world views, including Buddhism and atheism, don't translate well into public policy or government or culture - Judeo/Christianity's balanced emphases on truth/mercy, love/justice, law and grace, seemed to fit into the real world the best. 2. Living as if there was no personal God just didn't work for me - whether that's because the reality is that God exists and I was made for that relationship, or I just needed it and it was possibly not real, I could not tell. But living with no personal God felt as wrong as wearing two left shoes and wondering why your feet hurt. 3. Darwinism's failure - the funny thing is, even when I lost my faith, I never lost my conviction that evolution was a poor explanation for origins - I had been convinced of that by the data, not by the scriptures, so in a way, it left the door open to return to Christianity with regard to origins. But as John Lofton relates in his own deconversion, none of us make such faith decisions based on intellect alone - there is an experiential and emotional (or intuitional, if you will) component that we must all admit - even atheists.

Whole Reason : How to provoke your children

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:38:36 +0000

One thing that I try not to do, but do sometimes, is mockery (probably fits under #3) - I mimic their alligator whines, but usually not with good results...