The irony of atheism


GC has written about it, so I will not.

However this comment, by he that will not be named, has got me thinking

Christian Western Civilization is proof that the Bible is of divine nature.

Authentic human rights are a product of Christian Western Civilization.

I’m studying a course on the Middle Ages by Dr. Daileader who got his Ph D. in history from Harvard University.

Even secular studies of the Middle Ages include instruction on the profound influence of Christianity.

How does one get here, really?

 

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

37 thoughts on “The irony of atheism

  1. KIA says:

    His moniker should be Silence of Thought. Lol

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “How does one get here, really?”

    Indoctrination and warped logic.

    “’Im studying a course on the Middle Ages by Dr. Daileader who got his Ph D. in history from Harvard University.”

    Hopefully this helps in the long run.

    I do think he’s right in that Christianity has had a profound influence on Western Civilization.

    That by no means proves that Christianity is divine in nature.

    Liked by 3 people

    • makagutu says:

      I don’t dispute that Christianity has had a lot of influence in places where majority are Christians, what would you expect? That should be rather obvious don’t you think?
      But saying that because it has had such influence it is divine is fallacious.
      I think even he migrated into the lecturer’s head, if it were possible, it wouldn’t change him

      Liked by 3 people

  3. tildeb says:

    How? An unfortunate list of possibilities, some of which are almost synonyms: drugs, brain damage, indoctrination. SoM’s view is so badly warped and entrenched that no amount of reality can alter his firmly held beliefs. Reality must fit into his model and that’s that.

    Like

  4. Nan says:

    “Christian Western Civilization is proof that the Bible is of divine nature.”

    Huh?

    Like

  5. NeuroNotes says:

    Troll speak. Either that, or he’s one of the most illiterate people on the planet. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. shelldigger says:

    Christian Western Civilization is proof that: idiots procreate.

    Authentic human rights are a product of: modern society.

    The way this person thinks is like me saying “dogs have fleas, therefore cats climb trees.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. shelldigger says:

    Pfft! They would toss me right out of theology class! With a “and don’t come back!” for good measure.

    Logical conclusions aren’t exactly their strong point. Therefore they don’t want no stinking logical conclusions in theology class.

    Like

    • tildeb says:

      Well, hang on a second there. Theology class is all about logic and deductions. That’s why all the arguments are presented in this form by theologians. The logical is fine. The form of the argument is fine. The problem is assuming the premises are, in reality, true and this is the issue. Assuming the premises are true is how believers jump the shark of reality and why no matter what you bring to the table as evidence from reality contrary to, in conflict or incompatible with, the faith-based belief, it’s rarely going to have any merit. In the minds of sophisticated believers especially,reality is not allowed to arbitrate the premises or properly derived conclusions. That’s how belief in Oogity Boogity! survives.

      Like

      • shelldigger says:

        Well by starting with a flawed premise, how does one reach a logical conclusion? (unless the conclusion is that the premise is flawed) At what point does bending reality around so that it appears to fit ones premise become a logical conclusion?

        Therin lies my beef. I can’t even see it as philosophy unless philosophy is being applied to things we can all accept as real, probable, or testable theory. I see (philosophy of theology) more as a formal waste of time under an umbrella of fairness if anything… IMO philosophy has no place in theology class ( Except to rule out leprechauns, gods, and unicorns, but why would they want to do that?) And theology has no place in philosophy class except as an example of how not to reach a conclusion. πŸ™‚

        Theologians are great pretenders of philosophy. They can put on the show, but I have yet to see anything by them that didn’t boil down to oogity boogity in the end. Albeit buried under an enormous word salad.

        Please don’t think I’m trying to be contradictory in any way here, I think we are close to the same page.

        When I said they won’t want no stinking logical conclusions, I meant my conclusions (and a rip off of the Mel Brooks/Blazing Saddles movie line). They would still be quite happy with whatever oogity boogity they can manipulate to their own ends. After they threw me out.

        Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          it’s my experience that philosophers take illogical umbrage at the notion of their ‘art’ being subject to the scientific method in any way. I’ve seen some professional philosophers go to rather remarkable lengths to find some means to make it ‘practical’. Yet when someone does just this (I’m thinking specifically of Harris and his thesis about measurable morality), it’s the Ides of March all over again and out come a hundred philosophical knives to make sure no such advance will be tolerated.

          So when we start any claim about reality with premises in an axiomatic form like logic, we are doomed to fool ourselves because it’s the wrong form. What we need is some Bayesian reasoning that accounts for reality and allows reality itself to be used as the final arbiter of our claims in some independent form. In other words, we allow reality to help shape our beliefs about it rather than the religious/philosophical approach of using our beliefs to shape our understanding of reality. This is where people like SoM simply go off the rails of good reasoning and think themselves dedicated to ‘facts’ that ‘respect’ science.

          Nuh uh. Fool me once…

          Liked by 1 person

          • tildeb says:

            Oh, and I should have included Sociology in the same religious/philosophical category. Truly, I despise and utterly reject sociology as a legitimate academic field of study. Its theft of psychology and anthropology is so brazen it’s a wonder more people don’t share my disdain for its paucity of truth value.

            Like

          • shelldigger says:

            I certainly can find no fault with that. Allowing belief to shape our reality is an ass backwards way of thinking that systematically puts roadblocks in the way of practical reasoning.

            Thus we get an SOM. and others just like him.

            I didn’t know these quotes were attributed to SOM at first, but with my limited experience with him I’ve no trouble believing it.

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            Then, my friend, you don’t meet SoM a lot. His comments are the some of the strangest string of words I have come across. I don’t know how he links his premises to the conclusions. One thing is clear though, he takes pride in being absurd

            Like

          • shelldigger says:

            No no no. I don’t generally try to interact with SOM or anyone like him. The experience leaves me banging my head on the desk multiple times and it isn’t good for my health and well being.

            Anyone that can make claims like “dogs have fleas, therefore cats climb trees” and be proud of it, I find the best option is to look for the door. There is no reasoning with that kind of broken.

            Even knowing that it is difficlut at times not to respond, and I have. But we all know the futility.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I have for a long time gathered enough restraint not to respond to him. He sometimes tries to get me into a conversation but I don’t bother.

            Like

          • shelldigger says:

            Good. No sense banging your head against the wall. None of us want to see you in the ER with a fractured cranium due to interaction with a religiot πŸ™‚

            Like

    • makagutu says:

      They will just tell you your conclusions are wrong and Jesus will bless you

      Like

  8. nannus says:

    The idea of human rights, I would say, originated in the process called Enlightenment. It has nothing to do with the Bible.

    I know the courses of Dr. Daileader (I have them as audio books, available on Audible (without the printed materials)). They are excellent and I can recommend them. History teaching at its best. However, they contain absolutely nothing that could lead to such conclusions.

    Liked by 1 person

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s