mightychurch.com

I see that Compass will be showing this on Sunday night :

Compass, with Geraldine Doogue - The Atheists
Sunday 29 March, 10:05pm ABC1

As best-selling books rail against religion, Compass talks to atheists of different stripes. What do they believe and are they all the same ? Eminent philosopher John Gray ; science writer and editor of Skeptic magazine Michael Shermer; historian and writer Inga Clendinnen and Australia’s best known atheist Phillip Adams, all explore the philosophical and practical consequences of being an atheist.

How does their atheism shape their attitudes to science and the big questions of our time such as war and global warming ? Is conflict between atheists and believers inevitable and necessary ? Or, is this debate generating more heat than light ?  ( 30 minutes )

Sounds interesting.  I’ll have to watch it, with my heat-o-meter and light-o-meter switched on.

Sounds OK.
I’m more interested in hearing reasonable atheists than Dawkins fundamentalism.

Here’s an amusing cartoon that I came across - “At the Atheist Cafe”.

I can’t remember how to post the image*, so you’ll need to look it up :
“At the Atheist Cafe”

( * Anyone got instructions ? )

bizarro-atheist-cafe.jpg

Probably end up being one big bitch session. Atheists can’t help themselves because intellectual atheism is so devoid of original content.

Atheists sure know how to be offensive to anyone else’s viewpoints. I hope that they’re so forthright ann brave with their condemnation of Muslims - and don’t just pick on Christians :

Strap yourself in for a death-defying ride through Catherine’s spiritual
journey from wannabe Catholic altar girl to atheist eye candy.
Includes diversions to the megachurch experience, the cult of the
Quakers, taking on Cardinal George Pell in a faceoff and her diagnosis
that God has Narcissistic Personality Disorder - even though he doesn’t
exist…..

source :  http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/catherine-deveny/


That is actually really tragic, that someone could consider being ‘atheist eye candy’ a good exchange for a relationship with the living God.

The only bullshit here is Catherine Deveny.

Judging by her boorish performance on the ABC’s Q&A programme two nights’ ago - where, from memory, she spewed forth gems such as “the Bible was written by a rock [sic] 2000 years ago!” - this woman is just an ignorant, loud-mouthed moron. (At least Prof. Richard Dawkins is intelligent, well-informed [though it would seem not about metamathematics - something la Deveny would be incapable of getting her tiny mind around], articulate and, usually, polite.)

And “eye candy”? Hell, she ain’t even good-looking…

This from the Herald Sun:

Speakers’ true love of hatred
THE Global Atheists Convention in Melbourne last weekend worked a miracle on me.
I’ve never felt more like believing in God. Especially the Christian one.

My near conversion occurred because the convention’s speakers managed to confirm my worst fear.

No, it’s not that God may actually exist, and be cross that I doubted.

It’s that if the Christian God really is dead, then there’s not much to stop people here from being barbarians.
I’d have hoped that the Atheists Convention’s speakers would have reassured me not just by fine words but finer example that a godless society will nevertheless be a good one.

But what did they show me instead? First there was the world’s most famous atheist, former Oxford don and Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins, who smeared Joseph Ratzinger as the “Pope Nazi” and mocked Family First Senator Steve Fielding as dumber than an “earthworm”. The insult to the Pope is truly vile. As a 14-year-old, Ratzinger was conscripted by the Nazi regime into the Hitler Youth, then compulsory for all German boys.

Yet Dawkins was far from the only speaker to unleash the hatred he claimed Christianity inspired. ABC Science Show presenter Robyn Williams boasted he could mount “a devastating argument against religion in two words: ‘Senator Fielding”’, an insult which the hooting crowd clapped.

Added Williams: “Richard Dawkins said his IQ is lower than an earthworm, but I think earthworms are useful.”

Rationalist Society president Ian Robinson joined in, asking if there were any believers in the audience, adding: “OK, I’ll speak really slowly.”

The fourth speaker, Age columnist Catherine Deveny, saved her worst for the ABC’s Q&A show on Monday, tweeting from the set that fellow panellist Peter Dutton, the Opposition health spokesman, had “a face of a rapist”.

Yes, I know godlessness need not mean good-lessness. I’m agnostic myself, yet think myself morally serious.

But I’m certain both the Pope and Fielding would feel their Christian faith prevented them from vilifying Dawkins as his fellow atheists freely vilified them.

So why do leading atheists, so sure of their superior morality, feel licensed to be meaner than leading Christians?

Is this what morally superior people do when God has gone? In that case, bring God back.

link

First there was the world’s most famous atheist, former Oxford don and Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins, who smeared Joseph Ratzinger as the “Pope Nazi” and mocked Family First Senator Steve Fielding as dumber than an “earthworm”. The insult to the Pope is truly vile. As a 14-year-old, Ratzinger was conscripted by the Nazi regime into the Hitler Youth, then compulsory for all German boys.

The Pope dig is undeniably nasty, yet technically accurate; and - let’s face it - Steve Fielding is about as bright as a box of broken lightbulbs (YEC and Pentecostal to boot - ye Gods!). Whenever I’ve seen Prof. Richard Dawkins on television, he has invariably been polite - even in cases of considerable provocation from moronic opposition (such as Ken Ham).

As for Catherine Deveny’s attempt at physiognomy on the Liberal politician Peter Dutton, well she did go a bit far claiming he has “a face of a rapist”. (What does a rapist look like?) To me Dutton certainly looks at the very least untrustworthy, oleaginous; but then I reckon all Liberals are pond-scum anyway.

It’s a shame the quoted reporter didn’t take the opportunity to report on the content of the Convention, instead wasting column-space being a tone-police tut-tutter. Hell, anyone with half a brain knew it was not going to be an exercise in civility or charity towards Christians…

“oleaginous” ????

Hi Ian, Thanks for your contribution to the education revolution by bringing this seldom known ( and I suspect even seldomly less used ) word.  I must confess that I haven’t been reading the ‘20 new words’ section of Readers’ Digest lately, so I may have missed it of late.

So - for the sake of edification - of that one other person out there who was unfamiliar with this word, here is the definition:

Definitions of oleaginous on the Web:

* buttery: unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech; “buttery praise”; “gave him a fulsome introduction”; “an oily ...
* greasy: containing an unusual amount of grease or oil; “greasy hamburgers”; “oily fried potatoes”; “oleaginous seeds”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

*Oily, greasy; Falsely or affectedly earnest; persuasively suave
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oleaginous

*oleaginousness - greasiness: consisting of or covered with oil
*oleaginousness - fulsomeness: smug self-serving earnestness
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

*oleaginousness - The state or condition of being oleaginous; oiliness, unctuousness
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oleaginousness

Having got that off my chest, I am definitely feeling supercalafragalisticexpialadoshus - which apparently has no real meaning - but is definitely not an acceptable Scrabble word !

Now this may not have added anything to the “atheists” discussion - but I don’t think there is much to say anyway - except I wonder why, if they think that Christians are totally deluded, why do they spend so much energy arguing against a God who they believe isn’t there anyway. Go figure.

but then I reckon all Liberals are pond-scum anyway.

So Ian, So nice to see you share the “love” that lefties feel they just have to share with others that they disagree with. And isn’t “pond-scum” the source of life that evolutionists are so adamant about ?

It’s a shame the quoted reporter didn’t take the opportunity to report on the content of the Convention

I agree - but you would have already noticed how uninterested the “news” media are in reporting
REAL news. They just want to spread gossip and such crap. I mean, for goodness sake, who really needs to know who Lara Bingle is - and what she is doing every moment of the day. I mean… front page stories and lead articles on the 6pm TV news ????

To quote my all-time greatest philosopher ( Peanuts’ Charlie Brown ) - “good grief !”

So Ian, So nice to see you share the “love” that lefties feel they just have to share with others that they disagree with.

Well, Kevin ... it is Right-wing ‘thought’ and praxis that threatens the well-being of everybody else on the planet (including Earth’s ecology itself). So I see the annihilation of the Right as not just a positive, but a necessary, initiative - coming to you, soon, straight after GFC2 (a certainty, given the ongoing stupidity of politicians and economists in adhering blindly to the ridiculous unsustainable paradigm of ‘economic growth’).

And isn’t “pond-scum” the source of life that evolutionists are so adamant about?

Not sure, mate - virii, I would have thought.

alllllllllright getting back on topic (a week+ later :P ) - Ian, you’ve mentioned metamathematics several times before, can you elaborate on what it means generally, and what it means specifically for the a/theism debate?

Will do, Luke. I’ll get on to it over the next few days. Given the subject’s high level of abstraction, though, encapsulating metamathematics - including its ramifications in regard to the excesses of scientism now infecting certain atheists’ arguments - into something intelligible is a rather more difficult task than you suspect! Nevertheless, I’m very happy to comply. Metamathematics is a ‘silver bullet’ that cuts a lot of ground away from under atheists’ feet; so it is important for theologians (at least!) to have a basic grasp of it…

In preparation for the abovementioned task, I have recently been reading some critiques of Richard Dawkins’ controversial (and highly flawed) polemic The God Delusion. While doing so, it occurred to me that it is a somewhat smaller step for an atheist to switch over to a theistic Weltanschauung than it is for them to then progress and embrace some specific theistic religion. Take the case of the recently-deceased eminent biologist Anthony Flew, who was an atheist for most of his life, but lately adopted the idea of an ‘intelligent architect’ after deciding that the sheer complexity of the DNA molecule necessitated one - that DNA could not have originated without such a Being given the relatively young age of the Universe (at around 15 billion years). Now this is still a very long way from somebody like Flew then going on to accept Jesus Christ as Lord, God, and Saviour (for example).

In short: accepting a Creator is one thing; but believing in a Creator who also cares about the infinitely inferior sentient beings within the Creation is another matter entirely. Thoughts anybody?

(En passant, I wonder whether Flew’s undoubted awareness of cretinous Young-Earth Creationism was in any way an obstacle for him in considering Christianity as a viable belief-system? I would not be at all surprised…)

Just saw the first have of the doco called expelled. Its about how Inteligent Design is being censored by the scientific world.

I don’t blame the scientific world at all for such censorship! Dembski’s “Intelligent Design” is both bad science and bad theology - based upon the flawed 19th-century ‘God of the Gaps’ idea of William Paley’s Natural Theology (1801), long since discredited…

In my previous post, so-called “Intelligent Design” is the very last thing I had in mind - which is why I referred alternatively to an “intelligent architect”. Perhaps I should have written something like “creative Mind” instead? Forgive me for any confusion.

but lately adopted the idea of an ‘intelligent architect’ after deciding that the sheer complexity of the DNA molecule necessitated one - that DNA could not have originated without such a Being given the relatively young age of the Universe (at around 15 billion years).

Sounds like an “architect of the gaps” to me!

How’s it different from “God of the gaps”? He knows of no mechanism that could have developed DNA’s complexity, so he proposes an intelligent architect to do it.

SO WHAT?!, Dannii: Flew got it wrong partly; ID gets it wrong partly; the extent which their ‘wrongness’ overlaps requires you to… Check it out for yourself Dannii; you’re a big boy now… (Start by reading Flew’s writings. [It’s a pity you can’t ask him yourself…] Then move on to the many theological refutations of Paley.)

Short answer: the God who underpins the ‘gaps’ underpins everything else too; the phenomenon of DNA overlaps certain knowledge-‘gaps’ as well as their antitheses.

Anyway, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

(Incidentally if you bring up any of that YECs crap here, I’ll simply ignore you - a time- and energy-saving tactic which I’d encourage other thinking, well-informed Christians to adopt…)

My point is that it seems you have a double standard here: it’s okay to propose an external intelligence to explain the genesis of DNA when we currently know of no mechanisms that it could develop from in a certain time period, while it’s not okay to propose an external intelligence to explain the genesis of certain features which DNA encodes when we currently know of no mechanisms that they could develop from in other certain time periods.

The only difference I can see between Flew and ID proponents is that the ID proponents don’t limit it to the genesis of DNA because they think other biological features are also indicators of intelligence.

Ahhh no more YECS, please! Take it to PMs if you must, or better yet let’s just leave it be.

In short: accepting a Creator is one thing; but believing in a Creator who also cares about the infinitely inferior sentient beings within the Creation is another matter entirely. Thoughts anybody?

Yes, I know what you mean, and tangentially what I find most annoying about the atheism/theism debate is the atheists can’t, don’t or wont distinguish between ancient Judaism and 21st C Christianity! For all their objections, I feel like saying, yes, well done, I’m not an ancient Jew!

Just saw the first have of the doco called expelled. Its about how Inteligent Design is being censored by the scientific world.

Yeah, worth reading up on, It’s been universally panned and they interviewed the atheists involved under false pretenses, and then edited the hell out of them. Not a good look when you’re tying to claim the high moral ground, and doesn’t reflect well on the modern ID movement… or, then again, perhaps it reflects quite accurately on the modern ID movement.

Also, it appears Mark Driscoll has been sadly taken in by the ID movement. I noticed this the other day, where he writes on Is There Conflict Between Christianity and Science?which sounds sort of reasonable enough (I’m being generous), but then in this piece from 2006 (which appears to be the basis for his more recent post) he makes a complete hash of evolution, conflating it with a bunch of other things, and decides it is, in fact. incompatible with Christianity, and ID is probably the way to go. Look for the headline “What are some of the problems with atheistic evolution?” a few sections in. Shame.

Thanks Luke. (Driscoll is just another imperious trendoid theological lightweight swayed excessively by braindead U.S. cultural trends, willing to sell out if it expands his $$$$s and megachurch. He’ll sink without trace sooner or later.)

@Dannii. Not MY double standard…

Luke, where was ANYONE talking about YECS here???

Ian, so you weren’t speaking with approval of Flew? My apologises then.

No worries Dannii. I was speaking with partial approval of Flew - for at least taking a step in the right direction (i.e. from atheism to theism). In any case, I think his reasoning was correct as far as it goes. The double standard you raised seems to belong to the ID movement. Personally, not being a biologist (or having any overwhelming enthusiasm for biology [instead preferring the harder, more abstract sciences]), I’m happy to acknowledge the hand of God behind the origin of DNA and leave it at that.