Submitted by morgan-lynn griggs lamberth, Jul 21, 2007 05:23

Had Calvin and Luther the means, they would have been like Hitler! Hitler's modern technology helped him carry out mass killings of which those two thugs just thought.Luther hated Jews and would have exterminated them had he the means.Stalin faith-based communism was the basis of his killings,not his atheism.By the way, I use naturalist/rationalist to describe my position as I also abjure and objurate the paranormal.Read Paul Kurtz's"The Transcendental Temptation" to see what is wrong with the supernatural and the paranormal.They are both faith-based. Faith is the I just say so of credulity! Both base themselves on building castles in the air. Theology is a series of guesses about a supreme mystery , surrounded by other mysteries, putatively to explain matters but in reality obscures them.Theodicy is a series of rationalizations for exonerating the ground of being,Sky Pappy for permitting evil. Soteriology is just the rationalization of the divine protection rackett.We ignostics point out that God is vacuous.He is the mere tautology that God wills what He wills. God did it explains nothing.As atheologian Keith Parsons points out: God " hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf," and" Occult powers wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable reasons does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation." Indeed, not one at all.Now the Ockham argument is that it takes ad hoc assumptions to posit God as any sort of an explanation while natural cause we find all around us and do not take extra assumptions to make against Richard Swinburne's argument. And also against him, we no more need God as a personal explanation than we need Thor ,gremlins or demons.And also against him, God has to be a complex being as to understand billions of people in thousands of languages and dialects and also have influence in the cosmos and thus is not the simpler of the two explanations.This is the presumpton of naturalism that natural causes are the primary and efficient causes and explanations. [ Antony Garrard Flew,before his dogtage].The ignostic and Ockham arguments are the sine qua non of any atheology.Then there is the defeat of the free will argument as a rationalization of God's indifference to evil. As God is incapable of doing wrong and has free will and yet is not the Supreme Robot, then it logically follows that were we as He , would we not be robots! Alvin Platinga argues that God is a basic piece of knowledge like other minds,our own existence and the outer world, but he is quite mistaken, for God is not such as one has to teach others that He exists . And contrary to William Craig Lane. the actual infinity is the potential one as infinity never ends.To argue for atheism is not taking over! W e naturalists are now taking our seats in the public square! Theists no longer dominate. It is good that Jim Wallis is trying to get evangelicals to vote Democratic, but I prefer Paul Kurtz and Arthur Caplans as ethicists. It is the inverse of what theists allege that we live off their capital as it is they who follow our humanist morality when they use facts and reason instead of merely resorting to that mixed-bag of morals of those ignorant men of yore! skeptic griggsy Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong! Logic is the bane of theists. Bob, thanks and please continue to respond to nonsense!

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.