More Atheist Bad Thinking

Fanatical atheists infest the halls of Internet forumdom, spewing forth anti-religion, antichrist and anti-rationality in their never ceasing goal to proselytize.

Call one of these ignorant, and usually uneducated preachers what they really are and you'll get blasted by many vehement accusations of breaking some moral principle of "niceness".

Of course, according to atheist uh hum "logic", objective morality doesn't exist, seeing there is no "ultimate foundations for ethics" and morality is "an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”

Hey, we can thank evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson for that bit of ill tasting codswallop.

But here's the thing: why should anyone care when atheists point fingers at theists for calling them vidiots¹ , hypocrites, or whatever, when it's true?

They contradict themselves by such accusations and never see the contradiction. If you point it out to them what do they do? Well they resort to pretending your comment is a strawman! Apparently they don't know what a strawman is. They don't know that following the laws of logic, it's been shown many times by many philosophers that atheism necessarily leads to the conclusion that no objective values exist and relativism is all that remains.

Who Designed the Designer?

In debate circles and discussion forums on atheism vs. theism or deism; Darwinism vs Intelligent Design (ID) all across the world today we hear that ID is stuck with a serious problem.  According to the opponents of ID such as Christopher Hitchens (one the worst reasoners by the way on this subject) the ID, uh hum, stopper goes like this,

"...the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator."

This is a very strange statement, and incredibly presumptuous one at that. It is of course equal to the old atheist argument, "Who made God?".

The 1st error here is that it the question is based on assumption of infinite regression of Gods creating Gods, Designers designing Designers. But infinite regressions in logic are logical absurdities, since all infinite regression propositions are such.

The most curious thing however is the stupidity inherent in such bold assertions as Hitchens makes. Truly the so-called New Atheists can't hold a candle to the old ones, who tended at least to be much smarter and somewhat less smart-ass.  On the one hand the assertion seems to be based on the logical absurdity of infinite regressions, and on the other it foolishly demands an answer to a logical absurdity! Then it claims that not being able to answer a logical absurdity is somehow important in the challenge of the "who designed the designer" rebuttal.

Besides being a nonsense question, if one assumes an infinite regression of designers,  it is indeed unanswerable, as are all logically absurd questions!  An simple example of a nonsense question is "Is the color green square or round?"; or "Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?" - which questions generally come from the minds of children not yet trained in reasoning, logical and critical thinking, not from highly educated fools like Hitchens et al.

But here is another answer to the question at hand, supposing we are not implying an infinite regression; Who cares!?

Why should anyone care if the designer himself were designed? Once you've gotten to the designer of the thing you're examining, it doesn't matter! That becomes a second and separate inquiry altogether!

Consider the following:

If I'm trying to figure out who designed the car across the street, I may be able to get to the correct answer by a simple search - checking the logo on the front or back of the car. Now, once I've determined who that designer is - say Honda - why should I look any further?  Suppose I discover it was made by Honda.  Why should I inquire as to who designed the designer, i.e. who created Honda?  The question may indeed interest me but once I've gotten to the cars maker, that is sufficient, all by itself, to be able to postulate that the car was indeed manufactured by a specific designer.

Now, here's the real issue; in ID I'm not even looking to know who the designer is! The whole purpose of ID is not to determine the designer of life, but to determine that it was indeed designed rather that self-assembled by some other non rational process.

Do I really need to know who the designer is to determine that it was indeed designed or whether it came to be by a chance series of events by some other process? The answer is no. No more than claiming that when determining that some structure was designed or not, I can't logically postulate design until I know exactly who designed it! This puts the cart before the horse. Obviously I cannot postulate a designer until I've adequately determined design.

Design must be determined first!  Otherwise postulating the identity of the designer is futile.  Moreover once design is determined, with reasonable certainty, the question, "Who did it?", is an entirely separate research issue!


Darwinist always fail to see this distinction and thus fail to come up with more intelligent questions. Why? Because their minds are on hold in strict materialism. For them it has to be 100% natural, no intelligence allowed, no goals, no purpose, no guidance allowed. So as soon as a design inference is made, they are forced by their metaphysics - not evidence, not science - to deny design.

Afterwards they come up with the intellectually void and irrelevant rebuttal, "Who designed the designer"!

Conclusion

1. Intelligent Design proponents may or may not care one whit who the designer is. The most important thing to understand is that the question of identity is irrelevant until design has been adequately supported by the evidence.

This of course assumes that design detection is scientifically possible.  Is it? Of course it is!

Design detection is practiced every day in other fields such as forensic anthropology, arson investigations, genetic manipulation determining and many other fields. No one questions the ability to determine intelligent design in those areas. Only in biology! Only there do we find such vehement, apoplectic fits being had by opponents.  This fact alone should get any honest enquirer thinking that something is gravely wrong in Darwinian fundamentalism.


2. But it gets worse for them.  Suppose I have indeed discovered the designer's identity. The question, "Who designed the designer?", is still irrelevant because, hey I've found the designer and I need not go further back.

Why should I? Only if I have evidence that the designer was also designed and so on ... back infinitely again, and back to logical absurdities again, since it is impossible to determine an infinite regressions' beginning!

Darwinian Logic Exposed

Atheism is ‘lack of belief’? Sequel

In debates with atheists on the subject I am always being assured that newborns are essentially atheists because they are born without any beliefs.  I’m told that atheism, being lack of belief, means that newly born babes qualify as atheists.  Of course that is anserine.

A while back, I came across this article on the web entitled Children as young as four to be educated in atheism.

My, but my atheist antagonists ought to be embarrassed at this!

Surely even the most ignorant and incompetent atheist can see that there can be no need to educate young children into atheism if atheism is truly their inborn lack of belief! They are born atheists, according to them!
Isn’t it amazing how atheists contradict themselves at every turn? If newborns are already atheists why in the world would they need indoctrination in atheism? Surely just being left alone would suffice to leave them atheists. Ah, but the atheist will claim they will be inundated with theistic or deistic ideas during their lives so we must protect that innate atheism! Really? Why?

Atheism is an idea that doesn’t matter. It leads to no good, it helps no one and it tends to either universal anarchy and chaos or totalitarian despotism (remember the more than 120 million killings under atheist regimes in the 20th century alone).

If, by atheist reasoning, the universe really created  itself out of nothing (the atheists only origins option), and if the universe consequently really has no meaning, no purpose, no good and no evil, why should anyone care what anyone else believes anyway? Why are atheists so adamantly evangelistic on making sure all remain, as they allege, “atheists from birth”.

Obviously they feel they need more.  Should theists now start using PANIC HEADLINES of the atheist genre?

“Atheists, now they’re coming for  your children!“

- to mimic the Times article on Dawkins’ latest drivel on which I commented here.
Of course, this kind of headline would be entirely justified in this case, if only because they want to preach their inane religion in public schools (as though they don’t already under the guise of science). These people are fanatically against teaching any kind of religion in schools and even having any kind of religious symbol displayed in any public place, yet here they come! They now want indoctrinate kids in schools into their religion, all while claiming kids are naturally atheistic!!

Now here I will quote Dr Michael V. Antony, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. Dr. Antony addressed this “lack of belief” argument thus (my bold):

It is often said by atheists that atheism is not a positive position at all – a belief or worldview – but merely a disbelief in theism, a refusal to accept what the theist believes, and as such, there is no belief or position for there to be evidence for. Evidence is not needed for ‘non-positions’.
While the word ‘atheism’ has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew’s article ‘The Presumption of Atheism’), it is a highly non-standard use.  So understood, atheism would include agnosticism, since agnostics are also not theists. However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Some insist that this non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ is the only possible sense, because a-theism means without theism. But if that were a good argument, the Space Shuttle would be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself). Ditto for dogs and cats.

Yet none of that really matters, for even the non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ does nothing to neutralize evidentialism’s demand for evidence. As we saw, evidentialism applies to all ‘doxastic’ attitudes toward a proposition P: believing P, believing not-P, suspending judgment about P, etc. Therefore evidentialism says, with respect to the proposition God exists, that any attitude toward it will be rational or justified if and only if it fits one’s evidence. Now it is true that if one had no position whatever regarding the proposition God exists (perhaps because one has never entertained the thought), no evidence would be required for that non-position. But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism. So insisting that atheism isn’t a belief doesn’t help.

Mere absence of belief is not a position.  Atheism is, it is a chosen position.  Atheism, as denial of reality, is a form of insanity, therefore it is doubtful we will ever cease having to deal with atheist nonsense.  Will we ever see the end of this blatant insanity?

Darwinian Consensus Science

Hey guys, I was having a little visit over at Cornelius Hunter’s blog Darwins God the other day and was confronted, once again, by more Darwinist stupidity.

Dr. Hunter was pointing out how Darwinists don’t even understand their own theory.  Quickly one Darwinian fundamentalist critiqued a point made concerning the fact that a large percent of the population still don’t believe in Darwinian evolution. The opponent, someone calling himself troy, claimed that Hunter was using a “argumentum-ad-populum” and that “is just that – a childish fallacy”.

This is just utterly risible! As I explained in just a few words in response to “troy”, no one on earth relies more on argumentum-ad-populum, i.e. “consensus science” (an oxymoron), than Darwinistas (to borrow one of John A. Davison’s terms)!
Here’s the answer I wrote:

How many times have I been told “overwhelming consensus”, “virtually ALL scientists agree”, “number of peer reviewed…” etc etc. by some evolutionist seeking to justify his religious evolutionism by the number of scientists who agree!
Well I hate to rain of your clownish parade, troy et al., poor Dawinists, but just a few centuries ago the overwhelming consensus was that the earth was flat.
Since then the world has witnessed incredible and inane resistance within the sci community (in Darwinism it should be called the sci-fi community) against dozens upon dozens of -now proven- theories.
Do you need a list? Do you have a few Gigs available to store all the data?
In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post.
If that last instance resembles “to a ‘t’” the current situation dissenters of the “modern synthesis” face – I give you C. Hunter for ex.- it is entirely pertinent as we see here every day!!
There is no such thing as consensus “science”.  If its consensus, it isn’t science and v.v.
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had”. – the late Michael Crichton
My goodness but that sounds uncannily familiar.
Shame on you Dawieners!
It’s profoundly disingenuous of you to be constantly harping on consensus for your lame brained hypothesis and then go on and on complaining whenever opponents bring up quantities of unbelievers, like CH did above.
Face the music!  If the public continues to doubt Darwin, after  over a century of having it rammed down their throats as a fact beyond any reasonable doubt, its because the public is smarter than the nitwit, educated fool scientists who, acting more like priests in their dogmatic catechism, just don’t get the glaring problems involved in their religion of Darwinian fundamentalism.
Why? Because their minds are on HOLD.

You can tell that I have no qualms at all about calling these stubbornly unreasoning people names they well deserve. Indeed, the radical Darwinians do all in their power, including breaking the law, in their feverish attempts at “protecting” the public from all that opposes their own fanatical views.  Here I could mention Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzales and a few hundred other cases of Darwinian fundamentalism at work against freedom of thought and expression.  Thus it is they that are the true “science deniers”, utterly intolerant of any view but their own!

Am I saying that the peer review process is a fallacy in itself? Of course not. I’m saying that one cannot use it as a “proof” of anything.  Peers that review in biology, are more often than not those of the same opinion and in the Darwinian materialism cases, eager to approve of any article they think further justifies their own views and more than eager to disapprove of anything even remotely hinting at intelligent design.

Peer review is not an “end of debate” process. No matter how many reviewers may approve an article that doesn’t mean the view expressed therein is correct. I need to mention no more than I already did above in my response; Flat earth was a peer accepted view that was obviously wrong.  Yet deep prejudice in the scientific community of the day couldn’t accept anything contrary to what they believed. Too many careers depended on it!  Nothing has changed.

“The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the ‘papacy’ (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade.” (Gould, D.W., “Letting poetry loose in the laboratory,” New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)

The story of peers approving hypotheses that were clearly erroneous has been repeated hundreds of times since. Peer review is good but it doesn’t guarantee that only correct ideas will get through the system and indeed often guarantees quite the opposite!

In conclusion, if Darwinists insist on perpetually referring us all to the sheer numbers of  “peer-reviewed” literature in their favor and the “scientific consensus” as proof positive of their theory, they should stop either pretending that argumentum-ad-populum is a fallacy or stop using it everywhere themselves!
It is not peer review itself that is in question here but the way Darwinists use it as evidence their inane theory must be true.

The Transcendent Moral Law

The following quotations, garnered from ancient sources and cultures, demonstrate the independence of Natural Law. Of course this is hardly an exhaustive record.  I've taken this pretty much verbatim from CS Lewis', The Abolition of Man, the appendix.

Lewis added this important note :

But (1) I am not trying to prove its validity by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it. (2) The idea of collecting independent testimonies presupposes that 'civilizations' have arisen in the world independently of one another; or even that humanity has had several independent  emergences on this planet. The biology and anthropology involved in such an assumption are extremely doubtful. It is by no means certain that there has ever (in the sense required) been more than one civilization in all history. It is at least arguable that every  civilization we find has been derived from another civilization and, in the last resort, from a single centre—'carried' like an infectious disease or like the Apostolical succession.

The reason I publish this is to show that, contrary to the claims of many moderns, morality has NOT widely varied in any fundamental area amongst the numerous civilizations, peoples and nations.  Many moderns talk of morals as though different cultures have vastly differing moralities and thus conclude that morals and values are culturally based and so there is no independent, transcendent moral law.  But this is simply not true.  The most striking thing about moral values over the centuries and across the globe is how very similar they are, not how different they are.

There are no countries, and never have been, wherein cowardice is a virtue, child rape is good or robbery is a commended action. Indeed, the only times in history where nations have begun to condone such things is within cultures that practiced the worship of demons, false gods or have practiced rigorous atheism.  Moreover, most of the great empires of the past all fell into to decline once they began to condone behavior that was contrary to the moral law.  Most of them that refused the warnings of righteous men to turn from such wickedness ended up in chaos and ultimate destruction. Does this happen over night? Of course not. It's like the decomposition of a living being into a corpse through long slow disease. God is very patient.

I need also to mention here that there is no such thing as law without sanctions.  That is, without rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience.  Any rule without sanctions is thus no rule at all. But any true law must have an overriding authority behind it, with the right and duty to inflict penalties on criminals. Without this underlying authority there can be no law.

This is precisely where atheism utterly fails.  It wants morals without authority, but there is no such thing.  If there is no transcending authority guarding the law, there is simply is no law at all. Having ultimate foundations for ethics, atheism has no foundation for any ethics whatsoever.  This is the moral version of a universe without a creator, a universe that created itself out of nothing. And that is both logically and scientifically ludicrous. If we are to have any morals at all we need the underlying authority and only one thing responds to this call - a moral thinking absolute being, i.e. the being men call God.

I. The Law of General Beneficence

(a) NEGATIVE

'I have not slain men.' (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the Righteous Soul, 'Book of the Dead', v. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [=ERE], vol. v, p. 478)

'Do not murder.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:13)

'Terrify not men or God will terrify thee.' (Ancient Egyptian. Precepts of Ptahhetep. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. i3)

'In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw... murderers.' (Old Norse. Volospá 38, 39)

'I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for  me.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

'I have not been grasping.' (Ancient Egyptian. Ibid.)

'Who meditates oppression, his dwelling is overturned.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'He who is cruel and calumnious has the character of a cat.' (Hindu. Laws of Manu. Janet, Histoire de la Science Politique, vol. i, p. 6)

'Slander not.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16)

'Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded.' (Hindu. Janet, p. 7)

'Has he ... driven an honest man from his family? broken up a well cemented clan?' (Babylonian. List of Sins from incantation tablets. ERE v. 446)

'I have not caused hunger. I have not caused weeping.' (Ancient Egyptian ERE v. 478)

'Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv. 23; cf. xii. 2)

'You shall not hate your brother in your heart.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:17)

'He whose heart is in the smallest degree set upon goodness will dislike no one.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, iv. 4)

(b) POSITIVE

'Nature urges that a man should wish human society to exist and should wish to enter it.' (Roman. Cicero, De Officiis, i. iv)

'By the fundamental Law of Nature Man [is] to be preserved as much as possible.' (Locke, Treatises of Civil Govt. ii. 3)

'When the people have multiplied, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Enrich them. Jan Ch'iu said, When one has enriched them, what next should be done for them? The Master said, Instruct them.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, xiii. 9)

'Speak kindness ... show good will.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good.' (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. vii)

'Man is man's delight.' (Old Norse. Hávamál 47)

'He who is asked for alms should always give.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 7)

'What good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?' (Roman. Juvenal xv. 140)

'I am a man: nothing human is alien to me.' (Roman. Terence, Heaut. Tim.)

'Love your neighbour as yourself.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:18)

'Love the stranger as yourself.' (Ancient Jewish. Ibid. 33, 34)

'Do to men what you wish men to do to you.' (Christian. Matthew 7:12)

2. The Law of Special Beneficence

'It is upon the trunk that a gentleman works. When that is firmly set up, the Way grows. And surely proper behaviour to parents and elder brothers is the trunk of goodness.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 2)

'Brothers shall fight and be each others' bane.' (Old Norse. Account of the Evil Age before the World's end, Volospá 45)

'Has he insulted his elder sister?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

'You will see them take care of their kindred [and] the children of their friends ... never reproaching them in the least.' (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v.437)

'Love your wife studiously. Gladden her heart all your life long.' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 481)

'Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth...' (Ancient Jewish. Pro 5:18)

'Nothing can ever change the claims of kinship for a right thinking man.' (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2600)

'Did not Socrates love his own children, though he did so as a free man and as one not forgetting that the gods have the first claim on our friendship?' (Greek, Epictetus, iii. 24)

'Natural affection is a thing right and according to Nature.' (Greek. Ibid. i. xi)

'I ought not to be unfeeling like a statue but should fulfil both my natural and artificial relations, as a worshipper, a son, a brother, a father, and a citizen.' (Greek. Ibid. 111. ii)

'This first I rede thee: be blameless to thy kindred. Take no vengeance even though they do thee wrong.' (Old Norse. Sigdrifumál, 22)

'Is it only the sons of Atreus who love their wives? For every good man, who is right-minded, loves and cherishes his own.' (Greek. Homer, Iliad, ix. 340)

'The union and fellowship of men will be best preserved if each receives from us the more kindness in proportion as he is more closely connected with us.' (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. xvi)

'Part of us is claimed by our country, part by our parents, part by our friends.'  (Roman. Ibid. i. vii)

'If a ruler ... compassed the salvation of the whole state, surely you would call him Good? The Master said, It would no longer be a matter of "Good". He would without doubt be a Divine Sage.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, vi. 28)

'Has it escaped you that, in the eyes of gods and good men, your native land deserves from you more honour, worship, and reverence than your mother and father and all your ancestors? That you should give a softer answer to its anger than to a father's anger? That if you cannot persuade it to alter its mind you must obey it in all quietness, whether it binds you or beats you or sends you to a war where you may get wounds or death?' (Greek. Plato, Crito, 51, a, b)

'If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith.' (Christian. I Timothy 5:8)

'Put them in mind to obey magistrates.'... 'I exhort that prayers be made for kings and all that are in authority.' (Christian. Titus 3:1 and I Timothy 2:1, 2)

3. Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors

'Your father is an image of the Lord of Creation, your mother an image of the Earth. For him who fails to honour them, every work of piety is in vain. This is the first duty.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 9)

'Has he despised Father and Mother?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

'I was a staff by my Father's side ... I went in and out at his command.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 481)

'Honor your Father and your Mother.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:12)

'To care for parents.' (Greek. List of duties in Epictetus, in. vii)

'Children, old men, the poor, and the sick, should be considered as the lords of the atmosphere.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 8)

'Rise up before the gray haired one and honor the old man.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:32)

'I tended the old man, I gave him my staff.' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 481)

'You will see them take care ... of old men.' (Redskin. Le Jeune, quoted ERE v. 437)

'I have not taken away the oblations of the blessed dead.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

'When proper respect towards the dead is shown at the end and continued after they are far away, the moral force (tê) of a people has reached its highest point.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 9)

4. Duties to Children and Posterity

'Children, the old, the poor, etc. should be considered as lords of the atmosphere.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 8)

'To marry and to beget children.' (Greek. List of duties. Epictetus, in. vii)

'Can you conceive an Epicurean commonwealth? . . . What will happen? Whence is the population to be kept up? Who will educate them? Who will be Director of Adolescents? Who will be Director of Physical Training? What will be taught?' (Greek. Ibid.)

'Nature produces a special love of offspring' and 'To live according to Nature is the supreme good.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i. iv, and De Legibus, i. xxi)

'The second of these achievements is no less glorious than the first; for while the first did good on one occasion, the second will continue to benefit the state for ever.' (Roman. Cicero. De Off. i. xxii)

'Great reverence is owed to a child.' (Roman. Juvenal, xiv. 47)

'The Master said, Respect the young.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, ix. 22)

'The killing of the women and more especially of the young boys and girls who are to go to make up the future strength of the people, is the saddest part... and we feel it very sorely.' (Redskin. Account of the Battle of Wounded Knee. ERE v. 432)

5. The Law of Justice

(a) SEXUAL JUSTICE

'Has he approached his neighbour's wife?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

'You shall not commit adultery.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:14)

'I saw in Nastrond (= Hell)... beguilers of others' wives.' (Old Norse.Volospá 38, 39)

(b) HONESTY

'Has he drawn false boundaries?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

'To wrong, to rob, to cause to be robbed.' (Babylonian. Ibid.)

'I have not stolen.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

'You shall not steal.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:15)

'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Greek. Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)

'Justice is the settled and permanent intention of rendering to each man his rights.' (Roman. Justinian, Institutions, I. i)

'If the native made a "find" of any kind (e.g., a honey tree) and marked it, it was thereafter safe for him, as far as his own tribesmen were concerned, no matter how long he left it.' (Australian Aborigines. ERE v. 441)

'The first point of justice is that none should do any mischief to another unless he has first been attacked by the other's wrongdoing. The second is that a man should treat common property as common property, and private property as his own. There is no such thing as private property by nature, but things have become private either through prior occupation (as when men of old came into empty territory) or by conquest, or law, or agreement, or stipulation, or casting lots.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)

(c) JUSTICE IN COURT, &C.

'Whoso takes no bribe ... well pleasing is this to Samas.' (Babylonian. ERE v. 445)

'I have not traduced the slave to him who is set over him.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

'You shall not give a false witness against your neighbour.' (Ancient Jewish. Exodus 20:16)

'Regard him whom you know like him whom you don't know.' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 482)

'Do no unrighteousness in judgement. You must not consider the fact that one party is poor nor the fact that the other is a great man.' (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus 19:15)

6. The Law of Good Faith and Veracity

'A sacrifice is obliterated by a lie and the merit of alms by an act of fraud.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 6)

'Whose mouth, full of lying, avails not before thee: thou burnest their utterance.' (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v. 445)

'With his mouth was he full of Yea, in his heart full of Nay? (Babylonian. ERE v. 446)

'I have not spoken falsehood.' (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of the Righteous Soul. ERE v. 478)

'I sought no trickery, nor swore false oaths.' (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2738)

'The Master said, Be of unwavering good faith.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)

'In Nastrond (= Hell) I saw the perjurers.' (Old Norse. Volospá 39)

'Hateful to me as are the gates of Hades is that man who says one thing, and hides another in his heart.' (Greek. Homer. Iliad, ix. 312)

'The foundation of justice is good faith.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i.vii)

'[The gentleman] must learn to be faithful to his superiors and to keep promises.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, i. 8)

'Anything is better than treachery.' (Old Norse. Hávamál 124)

7. The Law of Mercy

'The poor and the sick should be regarded as lords of the atmosphere.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 8)

'Whoso makes intercession for the weak, well pleasing is this to Samas.' (Babylonian. ERE v. 445)

'Has he failed to set a prisoner free?' (Babylonian. List of Sins. ERE v. 446)

'I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a ferry boat to the boatless.' (Ancient Egyptian. ERE v. 446)

'One should never strike a woman; not even with a flower.' (Hindu. Janet, i. 8)

'There, Thor, you got disgrace, when you beat women.' (Old Norse. Hárbarthsljóth 38)

'In the Dalebura tribe a woman, a cripple from birth, was carried about by the tribes-people in turn until her death at the age of sixty-six.'... 'They never desert the sick.' (Australian Aborigines. ERE v. 443)

'You will see them take care of... widows, orphans, and old men, never reproaching them.' (Redskin. ERE v. 439)

'Nature confesses that she has given to the human race the tenderest hearts, by giving us the power to weep. This is the best part of us.' (Roman. Juvenal, xv. 131)

'They said that he had been the mildest and gentlest of the kings of the world.' (Anglo-Saxon. Praise of the hero in Beowulf, 3180)

'When you cut down your harvest... and have forgot a sheaf... you shall not go back again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.' (Ancient Jewish. Deuteronomy 24:19)

8. The Law of Magnanimity

(a)
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)

'Men always knew that when force and injury was offered they might be defenders of themselves; they knew that howsoever men may seek their own commodity, yet if this were done with injury unto others it was not to be suffered, but by all men and by all good means to be withstood.' (English. Hooker, Laws of Eccl. Polity, I. ix. 4)

'To take no notice of a violent attack is to strengthen the heart of the enemy. Vigour is valiant, but cowardice is vile.' (Ancient Egyptian. The Pharaoh Senusert III, cit. H. R. Hall, Ancient History of the Near East, p. 161)

'They came to the fields of joy, the fresh turf of the Fortunate Woods and the dwellings of the Blessed . . . here was the company of those who had suffered wounds fighting for their fatherland.' (Roman. Virgil, Aeneid, vi. 638-9, 660)

'Courage has got to be harder, heart the stouter, spirit the sterner, as our strength weakens. Here lies our lord, cut to pieces, out best man in the dust. If anyone thinks of leaving this battle, he can howl forever.' (Anglo-Saxon. Maldon, 312)

'Praise and imitate that man to whom, while life is pleasing, death is not grievous.' (Stoic. Seneca, Ep. liv)

'The Master said, Love learning and if attacked be ready to die for the Good Way.' (Ancient Chinese. Analects, viii. 13)

(b)
'Death is to be chosen before slavery and base deeds.' (Roman. Cicero, DeOff. i, xxiii)

'Death is better for every man than life with shame.' (Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf, 2890)

'Nature and Reason command that nothing uncomely, nothing effeminate, nothing lascivious be done or thought.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. i. iv)

'We must not listen to those who advise us "being men to think human thoughts, and being mortal to think mortal thoughts," but must put on immortality as much as is possible and strain every nerve to live according to that best part of us, which, being small in bulk, yet much more in its power and honour surpasses all else.' (Ancient Greek. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1177 B)

'The soul then ought to conduct the body, and the spirit of our minds the soul. This is therefore the first Law, whereby the highest power of the mind requireth obedience at the hands of all the rest.' (Hooker, op. cit. i. viii. 6)

'Let him not desire to die, let him not desire to live, let him wait for his time ... let him patiently bear hard words, entirely abstaining from bodily pleasures.' (Ancient Indian. Laws of Manu. ERE ii. 98)

'He who is unmoved, who has restrained his senses ... is said to be devoted. As a flame in a windless place that flickers not, so is the devoted.' (Ancient Indian. Bhagavad gita. ERE ii 90)

(c)
'Is not the love of Wisdom a practice of death?' (Ancient Greek. Plato, Phadeo, 81 A)

'I know that I hung on the gallows for nine nights, wounded with the spear as a sacrifice to Odin, myself offered to Myself.' (Old Norse. Hávamál, I. 10 in Corpus Poeticum Boreale; stanza 139 in Hildebrand's Lieder der Älteren Edda. 1922)

'Verily, verily I say to you unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit. He who loves his life loses it.' (Christian. John 12:24,25)

More on Paul Baird's atheist "reasoning"

Here is another of my answers to Paul Baird here
Paul G.'s answers are here

I've restated it in the 3rd person and added some extras.

Baird stated :

To state, without qualification, that evolution has many 'holes', is to make an emotive statement, or at least an unsubstantiated assertion. To then cite anthropological grounds is quite unfounded.

I've been staying out of this discussion lately precisely because Mr. Baird is quite bent on defending his empty world view by the standard atheist "avoid and accuse" tactic in which he himself is offering nothing more than emotive responses instead of facts. Worse, the main substance of

Baird's arguments are irrelevant to the real issue - are there moral and logical absolutes or not? If not how can you prove it?
Without assuming logical absolutes one can prove nothing at all.

C.S Lewis noted:

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike...Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish."
"If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
"Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe."
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."

One cannot reason with one who denies the very validity of reason. Nor is it useful to attempt to convince one who will, at all costs, not be convinced no matter what.

Mr. Gosselin has a Masters in Anthropolgy and his thesis was on this very subject so that when he states "anthropological grounds" as putting holes in Darwinism, it is indeed well founded.

Merely saying it isn't founded is ignorance and presumption.

Pogo has also written a rather large book, fully referenced, called "Fuite de l'Absolu" (in French obviously). In that book he literally demolishes most everything you and the atheists claim.

The funniest thing again though is that you're still trying to prove that logical absolutes don't exist all while denying the existence of such. This is tantamount to a mild form of insanity. Of atheism itself being denial of reality is a mild form of insanity.

Sadly, like Mr. Baird, most atheists cannot, and more importantly, will not see the inherent contradiction involved in their relativist view.

ex. Baird stated, "because relativism, by it's nature, is dynamic."
Dynamic?! This is like calling a wild party at the local whore house dynamic.
Dynamic?! Sure if you define dynamic as that which is utterly unstable, unreliable and chaotic!!

I find it unbelievable that atheists such as Baird, go about making their "bread and butter" by preaching an empty, self-confessed "meaningless" world view with a passion worthy of the most ardent TV evangelist.
And they do this all while sporting the most arrogant self-assured snotty demeanor as Mr. Baird has demonstrated throughout this discussion!

And this "bread and butter" is a clue to the real underlying reason why.

Accepting the truth about his vain world view would undo everything he's made himself!

Indeed, Mr. Baird's reputation among fellow atheists is at stake. Heaven (or hell) forbid he'd accept such humiliation!
They would all "turn and rend" him if ever they found he'd done the unthinkable thing and conceded, as did Flew, that atheism doesn't work in the real world.

So he's merely hiding behind a rather transparent mask of self deceit.

Again:
You cannot refute the law of non-contradiction without assuming its truth.

i.e. to refute the absoluteness of any law of logic you must assume, throughout your refutation, the absolute truth of that same law.
Otherwise, nothing can proved or disproved.

Yet, instead of accepting the salient fact of this, Mr. Baird merely denies that he merely denies!!

Yet no proof whatsoever has been offered by any atheist to demonstrate that logical absolutes do not exist.

It cannot be done. For in the very attempt one proves the truth of what he attempts to refute!

This would be laughable in any other domain.
Either Mr. Baird just doesn't get it or he's very dishonest with others and himself for selfish reasons.

The sum of Mr. Baird's arguments against pogo and I thus far is this: "I deny whatever you say, and you're just emotive, ignorant and dumb, so there!"

Again, this is no surprise coming from a typical atheist defender of the inane "nothing created everything" religion.

Atheism and morality

This is an answer to an ongoing debate between theists and atheists on moral law, absolutes and such.

The original post is here: and this response is in answer to statements here: Patient and Persistant: Response to Pogo #4

Participant “pogo” wrote:

Logically if “ethics and morals can change”, then tomorrow you may also agree with Pol-Pot, Osama ben Laden or Stalin or the neighborhood rapist… Here again, in logical terms there are no real barriers (beyond peer pressure) to such a switch within your moral system. Just to be clear. Though your world-view would not exclude the morality of Mother Theresa, of Albert Schweitzer or of Martin Luther King, neither would it exclude the views of Hitler, de Sade or of Pol-Pot. It doesn’t exclude anything. If you know of an escape hatch from this equation (within your world-view), please enlighten us.

Paul Baird answered : “Sorry, Pogo, but this is emotive nonsense.”

Here is my response to Paul B.

How so? It has nothing to do with emotion.
Pogo’s statement is simply factual and logical.
You claim there is no Moral Law. Thus values are determined on whatever one pleases and ultimately anything goes.
So you can do as you want based on any criterion you happen to like at the moment.

The apostle said: “For the Law inflicts punishment; but where no Law exists, there can be no violation of Law.”
And, “…but sin [transgression of the Law] is not imputed when there is no law.”
i.e. There can be no right or wrong where there is no law.

And this is the whole point -atheism, having no independent Moral Law -because there is allegedly no source for such- it cannot logically have moral values either.
The one is dependent upon the other.

Like I’ve said several times thus far: no law = no morals for there is no rule of measurement
The only reason atheists DO have morals is because they have no choice. The moral sense is innate, “written in the heart”.
The whole idea of morals as an evolutionary adaptation for survival is ludicrous for then all morals would be based purely on non rational genetic accidents!

Paul then said:

“Would you like to explain the moral rationale of water-boarding or extraordinary rendition ? …”

Again, any specific case is simply irrelevant to the real issue.
You could bring up any number of moral debates, issues etc. they will all merely underline the fact that humans cannot get away from their moral sense and automatically measure all actions according to some assumed rule they believe “ought” to be obeyed.

The fact that there are varying opinions implies 2 things:
1. everyone is consciously or unconsciously assuming some primary Law by which they attempt to measure actions. We try to measure how “close to” or “far from” the overarching Moral Rule, any moral state or action is.
2. we do not know this Law perfectly and some are closer to it, in their moral values, than others -whatever the reason

How so? As soon as we make any moral judgment we’re insinuating that actions, in any social arena, are wrong or right according to some independent Rule used to measure them.
We’re not just saying, “Well I don’t personally like that action so I deem it wrong.”; or “You’re action bothers me emotionally and to the degree I feel bothered you ought not do that.” The other party -if atheist- could easily respond, “well why should I care what you feel and to hell with your values, mine are different!”.
No, rather we appeal to an independent Rule that we automatically assume the other party knows and ought to obey.

There can be no debate on anything either unless we have parties each attempting to convince the other that their view is the right one, i.e. closer to a Real Right -independent of mere opinion.

The whole crux of the matter is this: what is the rule you use to judge actions? If not independent of human opinion it is not binding upon any and none ought be punished for any action at all. This is what Provine clearly stated in our quotes of him.
If there is no ultimate rule then no moral judgment is even possible and no evil or good either. See previous Dawkins’ quotes.

If there is no ultimate authority there can be no binding moral Law at all.
Hence no God = no right to make law, thus all human imposed law would be mere tyranny. Worse, that tyranny itself could not be ‘wrong’.
And again, this is standard atheist dogma (not a strawman) i.e. no God = no Rule = no good or evil; simply because there is nothing but subjective personal thought to measure by. Why should subjective opinion be binding on anyone? No God = no reason at all.