Category Archives: There is a God!
The Founders, Religion and Government: Christian Libertarian Charles Carroll
From one of the very best Face book Pages…. The Founders, Religion and Government
“Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer.
“I do hereby recommend, to the present and future generations, the principles of that important document, as the best earthly inheritance their ancestors could bequeath to them, and pray that the civil and religious liberties they have secured to my country, may be perpetuated to remotest posterity and extended to the whole family of man.”
~ Charles Carroll, On the 50th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence (August 2, 1826)
The Founders, Religion and Government
This is an update on an image we have shared before. A reader over at the The Federalist Papers colorized an image made in the 1800s of the motto Benjamin Franklin proposed for the Great Seal of the United States.
Please visit The Founders, Religion and Government and click like
Atheistic Materialistic Naturalistic Snowmen.
I’ve got big boobs
Angie Schuller Wyatt (pictured above) is the author of God and Boobs: Balancing Faith and Sexuality. GODandBoobs.com is Angie Schuller Wyatt’s website and also a Faceboob page.
Angie Schuller Wyatt is the granddaughter of celebrated televangelist Dr. Robert H Schuller.
Did we go from Hour of Power to breasts like towers in just two generations? I think we did.
What does the Bible say about breasts? What does my co-blogger Tim (pictured above) say about breasts? More than the Bible. His cups runneth over. Breasts have long been one of Tim’s good keen manly interests, but Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions.
AC/DC is not a cup size. They’re ballbreaking Aussie rock legends! AC/DC wrote the song Big Balls which was the musical accompaniment to my other post I’ve got big balls. So I think big boobs should be the musical accompaniment to this one. (This is the breast cover of an AC/DC song I’ve ever seen.)
Look what they’ve done to my song, Ma
Biomimicry: WATER BEAR INSPIRES REFRIGERATION-FREE STORAGE
Biological samples are fragile: if they’re not kept at cold temperatures, they quickly degrade. And refrigeration in labs and on trucks, planes, and ships is costly and requires a huge amount of energy.
The company Biomatrica has developed a solution that allows these fragile materials to be stored at room temperature. The technology mimics the microscopic water bear’s survival strategy. The water bear, an arthropod also known as a tardigrade, lumbers across moist surfaces of mosses and lichens. But when those dry up, the water bear goes into a suspended state that could last anywhere from a few months to a century. Other organisms, such as brine shrimp and the resurrection fern, employ similar strategies to survive extreme conditions.
Read more >>>here<<<
“Moral Teacher’s more important than Physicists”
Saith Einstein.
Science is Amoral in the sense that it works for whosoever employs her… without regard of the Righteousness or Wickedness of her Employer’s cause …
That is why Ethics are more essential than Technology.
As Einstein said… “Moral Teachers (like Jesus) are more important than Physicists”
And as the man who understood the horrific global implications if the Nazi’s should have time enough to get command of the power or the Atom…. He would know!
Ironically It was Hitler’s Immoral Anti-Semitism which caused Einstein to quit Germany and emigrate to America….
Poetic Justice!
Sin of ignorance? Upgrade now to sin of culpable ignorance! Free voucher.
False belief? Could be a simple mistake. You don’t know any better.
But what if you act on it? Then it’s a false pretext. Could be a sin of ignorance. You should know better than that.
What if I tell that you’re wrong and tell you why you’re wrong—but you persist in the error of your ways? Then you commit a sin of culpable ignorance.
Let’s be clear. We’re not talking Lutheran trifles here. A sin of culpable ignorance is a mortal sin. (‘Mortal’ as in brain death. Yours.) Your offending isn’t at the lower end of the scale. It’s at the other end of the scale. You haven’t merely offended, you’ve blatantly violated. You have declared yourself an enemy of Reason and an enemy of God. Blasphemy! You have taken the name of Reason—the Lord thy God (or, if you prefer, your Only Absolute)—in vain and broken the Third Commandment.
Thomas Jefferson got it.
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
It’s a shame that Jefferson didn’t read this before he put pen to paper. To *say* in your heart, “There is no God,” is foolishness. But to *argue* God’s non-existence is in its very nature an act of worship! (And thereby self-refuting!) Gobsmack!
What about Ayn Rand? She said she got it. She paid a fortune in lip service. But flattery gets you nowhere. Inference takes you places! So is Objectivism the road to nowhere or are Objectivists on a hiding to nothing? Yes, indeed.
I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.
This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics.
Did you just feel a puff of air? That was Satan spreading his wings. But this time it ain’t no laughing matter. The greatest intellectual saboteur of all time, operating deep within Reason’s inner sanctum, is now exposed as traitor to the true Royal cause. Objectivism is the philosophy of reason all right – reason with a silent ‘T’.
An Atheist’s Amoral Manifesto. Joel Marks.
Just ‘Liberated this from ‘Philosophical Theist’
“..I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality. I call the premise of this argument ‘hard atheism’ because it is analogous to a thesis in philosophy known as ‘hard determinism.’ The latter holds that if metaphysical determinism is true, then there is no such thing as free will. Thus, a ‘soft determinist’ believes that, even if your reading of this column right now has followed by causal necessity from the Big Bang fourteen billion years ago, you can still meaningfully be said to have freely chosen to read it. Analogously, a ‘soft atheist’ would hold that one could be an atheist and still believe in morality. And indeed, the whole crop of ‘New Atheists’ (see Issue 78) are softies of this kind. So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.” ~ Joel Marks, An Amoral Manifesto (Part I)
I post the following You tube vid in memory of an old atheist wastrel associate who mocked my faith… and ended up shooting himself
Read more… Francis Schaeffer ‘Materialism renders Man Nought. Meaning-less, Value-less, Right-less’
And…. ‘Poster child for Atheism…Hannibal Lecter.’
And…. Hiding in the Dark….
Richard Dawkins Produces Another Theist: Proslogion
Dr. Laura Keynes grew up in Cambridge, arguably the intellectual center of the United Kingdom. She studied at the University College of Oxford on a full-ride scholarship and ended up earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Her doctoral thesis was on epistemology, the study of knowledge and justified belief. As her last name indicates, she is the great-grandniece of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes. She is also the great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Why am I telling you about this young lady? Because she recently wrote an article entitled, “I’m a Direct Descendant of Darwin…and a Catholic.” Now the title didn’t surprise me at all. I know a lot of Catholics (and even more Protestants) who believe in evolution. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Michael Behe, says:1
You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.
However, as I read the article, I couldn’t help but smile. You see, Laura was raised Catholic but drifted away from the faith after her mother became a Buddhist and her brother rejected all organized religion. By the time she was studying for her Doctor of Philosophy degree, she was an agnostic. During that time, however, Richard Dawkins had opened up an international dialogue on the existence of God with his thoroughly awful book, The God Delusion. Well, Laura decided to read Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists, and she says:
I expected to be moved from agnosticism to atheism by their arguments, but after reading on both sides of the debate, I couldn’t dismiss a compelling intellectual case for faith. As for being good without God, I’d tried and didn’t get very far. At some point, life will bring you to your knees, and no act of will is enough in that situation. Surrendering and asking for grace is the logical human response.
I don’t think that’s the response Dawkins and his colleagues were hoping for. The entire article is worth a read, because it really shows how an intellectual person should respond to what the New Atheists have produced:
I read central texts on both sides of the debate and found more to convince me in the thoughtful and measured responses of Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, among others, than in the impassioned prose of Hitchens et al. New Atheism seemed to harbor a germ of intolerance and contempt for people of faith that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism.
Notice what she did. She read the central texts on both sides of the debate. Most people don’t do that, but it is the most important thing a real intellectual can do. I suspect that working on her dissertation made her realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased argument. All authors start with their preconceived notions, which color the way they view and present the evidence. As a result, the only way to come close to getting an unbiased view of the debate is to read from both sides. By doing that, you will hopefully be able to start seeing how the various authors are “coloring” the evidence, and that will allow you to remove some of the “coloring” and look at the evidence a bit more clearly.
When Laura did that, she saw something that should be immediately obvious to those who read both sides of this debate: the New Atheists are full of bluster and bravado, but their arguments are incredibly weak. Those who have responded to the New Atheists (at least the ones she read) provide a start contrast. They are calm, measured, and rational in their response. According to her, this contrast helped to demonstrate that the majority of the evidence clearly goes against the atheist position, and the bluster of the New Atheists is an attempt to cover up this inconvenient fact. As a result, she returned to the faith of her childhood.
Read more >>here<<