Do fronkeys exist?

The fact that asking “Does fronkey exist?” assumes fronkey exists is quite important. It reminds us that fronkey’s existence is intuitive and known by everyone. Fronkey is not hiding, but maybe we are.

If you think the above premise is sound, you have a problem. It implies if we can think something, the object of our thoughts must really exist beyond our thoughts. This is the species of argument some theists make as an apology for their belief in god. They however, argue that god occupies a special category of objects unlike unicorns or fronkeys so that my restatement of the argument above would not apply to Santa Claus but only to god. I think that is a case of special pleading.

An apologist, Andrew Sveda, in his post, thoughts on god’s existence, argues that to ask the question does god exist implies or assumes god exists in three distinct ways. One, that had we evolved by natural selection, we would not have developed truth seeking abilities; we would have no desire for truth and finally because our lives have meaning and purpose.

Since adaptation improves chances of survival- that is the organism that is best adapted (fittest) to its environment survives, and if truth seeking helps with this adaptation, then it will be developed. And while we have this cognitive ability, how many people use theirs? We have people believing asses talked and Jonah ate a fish and it remained alive for three days in his stomach!

He writes To say someone should believe something because it’s true can only hold if man has some objective purpose, which the atheist must deny. Which is quite interesting. Many people believe as true things that are patently false without any help from atheists. And believing something is true has nothing to do with objective purpose whatever that is. 1+1 is 2 whether your life has purpose or not.

I don’t know, but it seems to me some religious apologists don’t take time even to read on what has been written by other apologists and the responses to those arguments.

And finally, it should always be remembered that however great an argument is, it would take a leap of faith to come from argument for something to the something being actual.

in defense of Judas

When a guy is a snitch in an organization, he is called a Judas. Many times you hear the admonition don’t be a Judas but I think for the sake of literature, Judas needs rehabilitation. Read that passage again. For believers, it is found in Mathew 26. Who even told Judas the high priests were meeting and how did he manage this feat. Who sent him information the priests needed an informant, a Judas, pun intended.

At the table, Jesus already knows one of his disciples will betray him that evening and even says the scriptures already declared the son of man must die. He decides not to be a Judas and make this information public to his disciples nor does he take measures against his being betrayed. It is more like he wanted it to go down that way. At the end he paraphrases Ecclesiastes better not to be born when he tells his disciples that for him that shall betray him, it was better for him not to have been born.

If anything, this is one of the verses in the bible that portray Jesus as a nondescript preacher-man in some remote village. Why, if he had been driving out demons, healing the sick would identifying him be so hard? Is it the case there was nothing outstanding about him?

What was the need for the chief priest to pay 30 pieces of silver when all the soldiers needed to do was come and ask who is the Jesus fellow, that is if there was none among them who could tell him out to the rest.

I think Judas saw an opportunity to make easy money and took it. Jesus had it coming. What else had he come for, anyway? And how did he see it going down?

it does appear

to me that some religious faithful don’t read their bibles. Paul says if Christ is not risen then their faith is in vain. Elsewhere he says as death came to the world through one man, so life through Jesus. And we are told Jesus came to die for our sins. Why they chose deicide as the preferred model instead of dying in his sleep I don’t know. You are wondering why I am telling you all this, wonder no more. First it was a Kenyan lawyer who sued Israel at the ICJ for the death of Jesus but now I see there is an American pastor who is demanding an apology from Israel for the death of Jesus. I thought it was the Romans who did the crucifying? Curious minds want to know.

it is that time of the year

or is it the moon that some of you have been encouraged by your imam or is it the profit that you should fast. That the lord likes it when you fast. Chapman Cohen wrote

ar more suggestive, however, than the association of religion with what we may call the normal social forces, is its connection with conditions that are now clearly recognised as abnormal. From the earliest times we find the use of drugs and stimulants, the practice of fasting and self-torture, with other methods of depressing or stimulating the action of the nervous system, accepted as well-recognised methods of inducing a sense of religious illumination, or the feeling that one is in direct communion with a supernatural order of existence.

Religion and Sex by Chapman Cohen

but i think it is Zera Yacob who said it best

God does not order absurdities such as ‘‘Eat this, do not eat this; today eat, tomorrow do not eat, do not eat meat today, eat it tomorrow. . . neither did God say to the Mohammedians: ‘eat during the night, but do not eat during the day.’ ’’

Go yea and enjoy food, whatever you tastes are.

Why is there anything at all?

Is usually presented as being fatal to naturalism. But the corollary is usually not asked as much, “Why is there a god at all“?

open comments post

Today I don’t want to bore you with stories about running. I know some of you, I will not mention names, get tired from just reading about running 1mile. SO telling them about running 10 miles would make them ten times tired which reminds me of one of Mark Twain’s tales. I think in the story he goes to the Alps to hike. He has a binoculars and a guide. So he sits at the base camp and tells the guide to go hike while he follows him with the binoculars and gets tired in the process. Maybe that’s how I should do my next hike or run. But enough of that.

You could be a theist, deist, atheist or anything in between or Nan or Barry. I hope that leaves no one out. I am interested in hearing from all of you what, if you have considered them, is the most fatal argument against the existence of god(s). And if you are a theist, what you consider as the most persuasive argument for the existence of god(s) and why?

I hope this should be fun. Give it a go. Surprise me. But you can talk about running if you wish to 🙂

If atheists found out that God is real, what would they do differently in their lives?

I find quora sometimes does have very interesting questions. Notice I say interesting not intelligent.

The first problem( taken literally) with this question implies we believe god is fake or unreal which is a gross misunderstanding of the atheist position. I have no belief in the existence of god or deity.

The second is implied. That the deity we will find is the Abrahamic one who sends you to hell because he loves you very much. Such a deity is terrifying.

If one were to meet, say, the Maori god of earthquakes that Barry was telling me this morning, one could ask them what joy they derived from such destruction? Do they have regrets and can they teach me to create an earthquake?

A meeting with Apollo or was it Bacchus would be a different thing altogether. Maybe we would get so high no meaningful conversation would be possible.

I have digressed.

Atheists live their lives just like other people except they don’t have the tendency to meet on a certain for worship or thank their cats for something that happened to them or that they did and I guess many would continue that way.

Finally, there is an implicit acceptance by this believer that god could as well be real. Or else this believer doesn’t subscribe to an omni god. And I am with anyone who entertains such doubt and I encourage them to move just one step further.

Have a good weekend everyone.

thank god i am not a believer

because if I did and wrote something like this, I should be accused of blasphemy. The juicy part that caught my eye is

People in Hell exist. I think this is the most tragic, but also the most tragically beautiful part. Going back to Point 3: all things that exist only exist because God loves them into existence and holds them in existence through His love. Thus, the fact that people in Hell don’t just “disappear into oblivion” is because God is constantly saying to each one of those souls, “I love you, exist in my love. I love you, exist in my love.” Every single soul in Hell is as loved by God as souls in Heaven, Earth, and Purgatory. But, as Point 4 notes: Hell is a prison that is locked from the inside. 

God loves you enough to keep you in hell but not to forgive you and send you to stay in heaven with him. I don’t know what understanding of love this is, but it is the kind I am sure I don’t want. I think this is hat happens when one is committed to a position that is indefensible. You try gymnastics to make it sound reasonable but it doesn’t work.

God loves, even in hell, it just will not get you out.

This post is in need of a title

In the ages past, there have been very articulate men and women who spoke for non belief. I don’t know whether such persons were known to the general public or was it just a small section, the elite, that knew them?

France had its Voltaire, Diderot. The English had Percy B Shelley. In the US of A they had Ingersoll, Ernestine Rose, Thomas Paine and I would add Joseph Lewis in East Africa we had Okot p’Bitek. I don’t think I have read any works from Latin America, Asia and China on non belief.

Who would our descendants name as the most articulate advocates of non belief? Who would we say used his wealth & influence like Voltaire to make the world a better place? You know an Ingersoll type?

Whether it is necessary that each generation produces a Darwin, a Newton or Eugenia is altogether open to debate. Maybe the example of these fellows, among others, is sufficient. Who knows. Or maybe Mark Twain was right when he said nature once it finds a product that works produces it en mass with slight variation.

Or maybe I am not making sense.

What sort of evidence are you looking for?

Is a question many atheists have been asked in one form or another. Many have given varied answers to the question and my contribution, though not new, is to say evidence that would be accepted by any reasonable person/observer.

But who is a reasonable observer/person?

---

Abstract philosophy and exercise is only suited for that person who is well fed and housed. The practical man or woman has use for philosophy to the extent to which it is relevant to their lives and until professional philosophers address issues of practical men and women, their works will remain in university bookshelves read only by other professional philosophers.