Sunday, 22 September 2013

The Defences for God - How Atheism is Defeated Forever

Religion by this defeats Atheism, probably forever. This is the story of arguments of "6+1" that has first become arranged together in bringing this unbeatable Ecumenical Religious view to the World.

I can surely say from a logical point of View (also with association to Quine) that Religion is the most sensible in the 21st century, as for defence, it is grounded on this:

* The Privacy Argument.
- nothing new from the Atheists.

General, deductive outline:

Privacy holds the best judgment that makes the Bible/God more appealing
Privacy holds the best judgment
The Bible/God is more appealing

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: Privacy holds the best argument
G: The Bible/God is more appealing

1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

* The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins.
- that the sinful life seems repulsive and that religious ponderings seem much more engaging. With Se7en-movie backing this up as description.

General, deductive outline:

The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive and that as the Bible makes the case for the other life God becomes more appealing
The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive
The Bible makes the case for the other life, God becomes more appealing

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
S: The life from the Cardinal Sins seems repulsive
G: The Bible makes the case for the other life, God becomes more appealing

1 | S
2 | S ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | S 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

It is noted that the argument can hold another logical line in splitting G into two parts, invoking 2 more lines of logical notation, but essentially the argument stays the same.

* Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design.
- that NDNID defends God as possibility and that Atheism fails to prove, also with logical soundness, the impossibility for God.

The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
Type of logic for this, NDNID: Quantified Existential (Predicate) Logic
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions
G: God proposition
I: Important proposition
P: Propositions in general
E: Objective Ethics propositions
M: Meaning propositions
B: have Belief propositions in
D: Propositions of definition of God
C: Complete Knowledge propositions

(1)
1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).

(2)
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A
2. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".

(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:
1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)
2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
3. □(∀x)(Cx) A
------------------------------
4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)
5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E
6. □(∃x)(Dx) R
------------------------------
7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.

(3)
1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Mx) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.

(4)
1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
2. □(∃x)(Ex) A
------------------------------
3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A
------------------------------
4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.

Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!

It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.
In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.

One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God. In a definite sense, therefore, God "as idea" threads through the Possible modality to obtain as necessary.

It is noted that as the NDNID holds its own logics, it acts together with the Priest Stories in securing the bottom line, this makes the Religious side the rock solid fortress for Faith in God, ecumenically.

* The ESP-God Debate.
- now that, by telepathy, that we have God by our foreheads and Atheism seems more wrong than ever before, then why Atheism at all? Because the contention has been earlier that if telepathy is "realizable" then (necessarily/more conceivably) God, even by themselves.

General, deductive outline:

If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true, the case for God is more credible.
If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
E: If ESP by Telepathy, only, is found to be true
G: The case for God is more credible.

1 | E
2 | E ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | E 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

It is noted that the "if" standing can here be seen as strong or weak alike. However, depending on who you talk to, in relating to truth whatsoever, we, the Religious, initially do not bother to hold more than the weak "if" rather than the definitely proven case for ESP/Telepathy. This is at least the recommendation.

* The Descartes' Phantom Feelings.
- that if Descartes' description of feelings can be proven then God "more", that once again, the consistent pattern by the amputee's brain proves the Atheists wrong once more and by this fantastic revelation, that God exists also by this notion.

General, deductive outline:

As The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science, the case for God is more credible.
The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
D: The Descartes' Feelings are confirmed by science
G: The case for God is more credible.

1 | D
2 | D ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | D 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

* The Van Lommel Studies.
- that Van Lommel by his work has shown that the existence of the soul is a possible description for people's (common) ability to win over death and that, therefore, God "more" yet another time Do we get it up? (Atheists to Mystics and Religions are cool after all?)

General, deductive outline:

As The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls, the case for God is more credible.
The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
L: The Van Lommel studies confirm the existence of souls
G: The case for God is more credible

1 | L
2 | L ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | L 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

The possible 7th point: There's another one too, with similar structure: if some aspects more prove true, in addition to the above, by the "priest stories" then God further... But this is one is for the moment dicy or more dicy than the telepathy argument...

General, deductive outline:

If The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in  Near-Death Experiences then case for God is more credible.
The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in  Near-Death Experiences.
The case for God is more credible.

Types of logic for all of these except NDNID: Sentential
System: mFitch (Fitch with line above the conclusion)
Universe of Discourse (UoD): Everything
Entities:
P: The Priest Stories confirm miraculous instances of souls and all else, like in  Near-Death Experiences
G: The case for God is more credible

1 | P
2 | P ⊃ G
0 |-------------
3 | P 1 R
0 |-------------
4 | G 2, 3 ⊃E

Again, The Priest Stories is subject to a kind of limbo of standing, into how it is supposed to be placed with the rest of the logics above. However, depending on who you talk to, in relating to truth whatsoever, we, the 

Religious, just listen to these stories, of troubles with the corrupt minds and what events have brought us in terms of history. This is at least the recommendation.

2 more points for the Religious side:

Also, the religious confidence point must also count in favour for the religious side, although a bit on the side of the arguments playing out.

Another point for the Religious side is that "Atheism" (now reverted (back) to Humanism) is archaic by the Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle" view. Therefore, all religions can be considered more modern than the view originating from the text of Aristotle. Besides, given the later development on both sides makes this more definite, because the Religious side has developed into the civilised while the "Atheist" has developed negatively despite the order from Aristotle himself to develop society by his text named "Politics" describing exactly the "political animal", well known in the "Atheist" circles, but "maybe not in this sense. There seems to be a "slave"-word in there."

Besides, from the above:

1. Stronger Religion Every Day!

The Atheists have failed to provide
* soul and not-soul alike - soul found, at least to some plausibility.
* phantom feelings and not-phantom feelings - phantom feelings found, crucially by (f)MRI, two alike.
* telepathy and not-telepathy - telepathy found by increased awareness and research, at least more credibly too, also by millions' personal experience, just ask them about feelings and "emotional awareness".

Let's not hear them whine about not-(possible-)-God (not-⋄-G) too because it makes them look awkward.

It is noted that Phantom feelings can be found, also, by voluntary surgery, laying one underarm in the freezer, and confirmed by (f)MRI in a couple of months, perhaps faster without entering the problem of these people who have had a tragic event in their lives and who wish to not be part of research.

2. Religion, Ecumenism and Humanism Together - How They Match.

Ecumenically religious humanism, just in case too much troubles over the details. 3. to yourself.
Ecumenically religious. 2. to yourself.
Then, fx. Christian and Scientologist. 1. to yourself.

That the best version of Humanism belongs equally much to Religious people as the Humanists themselves, insofar as they only supply one type of "life view"/"orientation in life", i.e., not citing any particular religious view, not to say that... the privacy notions...
Ecumenism holds from the encyclopedia:
[( ek -yoo-meh-nishm, i- kyooh -muh-nizuhm)]
"A movement promoting cooperation and better understanding among different religious groups or denominations."

By
L. F. Olsnes-Lea © 2013

Notes:
1. This work is a summary of my NDNID from my web-pages, from my work through the jr. high school, my contributions to the ESP and God debate by mSomatism and general logical work by these other investigations into arguments and defences for God, like the Privacy Argument.
2. Atheism has lost it's foundation mainly because of "6+1" and the other contributions for defending God and Religions by hearts and minds. Because of this, Atheism has also fallen outside academia in at least one sense because it fails anymore to present intelligent/intellectual opposition.
3. The academic contribution always lies inside truth and civilisation insofar as civilisation proves sustainable under honest discussion. After 2000 years, it probably does either way, after working up various important aspects such as the subjects themselves, ethics, law, political science, science in general, mathematics and medicine. Well, well, you can add the rest, engineering, architecture, so on...

References:
1. ESP and God Debate is a debate for unknown length of time, that is, my reference point for it is originating from some Psychology Today article that claims Telepathy to not exist.
2. The Descartes' Phantom Feelings is a project that has been carried through, philosophically, by Richard Swinburne.
3. The Van Lommel Studies has been carried out by Van Lommel of Holland, presumably.
[More information for these references later, in accordance possibly, by CMS.]
4. Ecumenism. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ecumenism (accessed: September 20, 2013).
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism .
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism .
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism .
8. The Rejection of the Cardinal Sins has a film to it, "Se7en", starring Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt, but actually written as a "test" with Lista Ungdomsskole, where they have literally stolen it from me, also with possible trauma to go, either directly or by severe torture threats, even, maybe, checked out by tech-ears/tech-eyes (cochlea-implants, eyes/ears).
9. The references for my own work, starting with NDNID some time ago, but with other ideas and work having the origins from late 80s and possibly the early 90s, "with 3 communication vectors and one mass communication idea and cast by Se7en".
10. [The last two points for us, the Religious have their own references. I'll come back to these. This page is now, "6+1+2", with a popular reference of "6+1".]

----

Finally a video presentation to make this whole issue more accessible. I hope you like it:

The Defences for God Explained, myself presenting it


----

Additional text to enter more structurally elegant above, but placed here temporarily to provide reliably quick response, that is, speed is not on us, the Religious, we are not the slow ones: The Dark Energy considerations as "secret" celebration from "Atheism" in proving "not-possible-God" in representing a kind of energy constant by the whole of the Universe, the well-known energy preservation principle also from thermal physics must fall by Karl Popper's two requirements for decent science, i.e., the falsification requirement or the fallibilism requirement or both!

That is,

the energy preservation principle over the Universe by WMAP-data, background radiation data -> not-possible God Conclusion: Not-possible God by Modus Ponens

must fall because of Karl Popper's two requirements for decent science, i.e., the falsification requirement or the fallibilism requirement or both!

Either way, a research description that's credible must first be made and they need to show that they have NO corrupt motivations for conducting the research! That is, some other freaks who want to subject the World to freak nature are supposed to be granted a go-ahead because the primary and official researchers for investigating the research think that "it may bring something"!

Freak nature is only one thing: the results of torturing people hideously!
2 more points for the Religious:
Also, the religious confidence point must also count in favour for the religious side, although a bit on the side of the arguments playing out.

Another point for the Religious side is that "Atheism" (now reverted (back) to Humanism) is archaic by the Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle" view. Therefore, all religions can be considered more modern than the view originating from the text of Aristotle. Besides, given the later development on both sides makes this more definite, because the Religious side has developed into the civilised while the "Atheist" has developed negatively despite the order from Aristotle himself to develop society by his text named "Politics" describing exactly the "political animal", well known in the "Atheist" circles, but "maybe not in this sense. There seems to be a "slave"-word in there."

Summary: 2 points more on the Religious side. 1 point pro-"Atheism" refuted or not foreseeably successful (by far).

26 comments:

  1. There are some other blog texts to this:
    An Easy Way to Religion and Stalwartly So
    The Defences for God on Facebook as Note
    The NDNID blog text here
    (others?)

    Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  2. With our arguments and idiot psychologists not putting in any bloody mouth here, our LOGICAL SOUNDNESS goes sky high and is well respected or should be!

    ReplyDelete
  3. To be added shortly:
    The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.
    UD (universe of discourse): Everything
    K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions
    G: God proposition
    I: Important proposition
    P: Propositions in general
    E: Objective Ethics propositions
    M: Meaning propositions
    B: have Belief propositions in
    D: Propositions of definition of God
    C: Complete Knowledge propositions

    (1)
    1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)
    2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
    ------------------------------
    3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)
    ------------------------------
    4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)

    Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).

    (2)
    1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A
    2. □(∀x)(Cx) A
    ------------------------------
    3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2
    ------------------------------
    4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3

    Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".

    (1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:
    1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)
    2. □(∃x)(Dx) A
    3. □(∀x)(Cx) A
    ------------------------------
    4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)
    5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E
    6. □(∃x)(Dx) R
    ------------------------------
    7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)

    Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.

    (3)
    1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
    2. □(∃x)(Mx) A
    ------------------------------
    3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A
    ------------------------------
    4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

    Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.

    (4)
    1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A
    2. □(∃x)(Ex) A
    ------------------------------
    3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A
    ------------------------------
    4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

    Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.

    Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!

    It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.
    In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.

    One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:
    [□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)
    That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The NDNID part has no "general deductive outline" yet and perhaps you may need to wait until the paper/book! Thank you for the attention.

    (However, please, see http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2013/05/the-making-of-ndnid-paper-ndnid-paper-2.html if you are very excited.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Their side, Atheism, is continuously weak too: Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins :
    "Christians, if you'd been born in Pakistan you'd be Muslim. Muslims, if born in Poland you'd be Catholic. So why so confident in your faith?"

    My answer as one possible answer from the religious:
    Religion IS cultural. There is no need for the Religious people, especially not the ecumenical, to "postulate" any dominance or superiority
    to this country or that. Which part of the Bible is he ranting about now?

    Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins :
    Why shouldn't Saudi women drive? Driving damages their ovaries and pelvis. http://bit.ly/1fOrsZu Oh I SEE, it's not religion but SCIENCE.

    My answer again, Moderate and Modern Christian:
    This is cultural as well. Religion and culture isn't always the same. Society "does not comply entirely" with the word of the Holy Books and it has been
    like this for a very long time, also expressed in Job's Book of the Old Testament in the Bible.

    It's also given that there's good possibility that the virtue of kindness will benefit these women in the future as society develops and society, by this, provides
    more optimism, health and good life.

    This is one possibility for our side to they "who do not understand".

    The Arab countries are still struggling with high unemployment and the general level of development, being "developing", but this has several reasons, see Financial Radicalism/Military Complex of USA, also to Nazi-Germany by "serial-Henry", serial production.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also to the Facebook note: https://www.facebook.com/notes/leonardo-f-olsnes-lea/religion-and-atheism-god-and-science-the-responses-to-all-the-youtube-videos/426023734174543

    holding fx.:

    Science and God

    Here's what: science of logic fails to refute possible-God. So if we present a logical proof that says necessary-Ethics proves possible-God and come up possible-God as valid, logical conclusion by Modus Ponens, science in general has nothing to come up with. There are several reasons for this, as much as fission and the atomic bomb has stayed outside the human eye until 1945, God stays outside the scientific human eye FOR NOW. There is not scientific basis for proving God yet or possibly forever because science is in a sense very limited to experiment/discovery, observation/data-set and logic (MT/MP). So with the other science as well, some science is just very hard to come by and with Carnap in my mind, maybe it is so that God just remains to elusive for the human kind to ever put God inside our science. It may not necessarily be a bad thing, but here we are with our progress and this is it... Enjoy 2013.

    Life and God

    Again, Religion is explained by The Holy Books, life under it or elsewhere, Science explains Reality, Religious people or other, like the Humanists... Science doesn't reach everywhere, it needs to comply with the scientific conventions for conducting exactly science. Alright?

    What best describes Reality

    Also, the Bible BEST explains Religion and Science, under it or not, explains Science. So here is the Vatican: Pontifical Academy of Sciences by Wikipedia or the Vatican directly, Pontifical Academy of Sciences underwww.Vatican.va . Good?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Atheism is now DEAD!

    The expressed reasoning for why Atheism is gone from the universities is this:

    The logical foundation, in not anymore being able to object to the "whitelist" Religions:

    They have no possibility to logically prove the impossibility of God.
    They have failed to be the first to prove the Soul by the Van Lommel studies, to prove the Descartes' Phantom Feelings by fMRI, to prove the statistical existence of telepathy as the human direct perception in everyday life of Quantum Mechanics, seriously, i.e., they are scientifically inferior or, worse, scientifically dishonest, maybe pathologically so too!
    They do not bother to display seriousness toward leadership by taking on Humanist Values, being serious to ethics.

    These charges are serious against Atheism and will evidently be their bane too, whether "Positive Atheism", Atheism as private view of life, or "Negative Atheism", Atheism as (valid) objection to the Religions!

    End note for them: they comply (only) with archaic Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle", i.e., one type of Naturalism as "Life Philosophy" and in doing so fail the future opportunities for being credible leaders because they say explicitly that they are NOT Humanists which includes to be serious about ethics and human-to-human and human-to-nature interactions!

    Even still, the Atheists need to realise that Humanism remains the only viable strategy for them and turn to it as soon as possible or face ridicule!

    Final statement from myself, Olsnes-Lea (accountable)!

    Extra:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_leadership .

    Ethical leadership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org
    Traditionally, the view of leadership has been that the main goal of leaders is ...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism .

    Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org
    Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the...

    The university duties for ethical leadership GO DEEP! Understand this, please, of find yourself OUT!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Adding a 4th point against Atheism:
    That the "evil" on Planet Earth can be explained and therefore that "some stupidity" by the people at this time, Humanity on Planet Earth before 1950 CE needs to accept a kind of stupidity-guilt for "allowing" this to happen.

    This removes some of the charges of "evil" in "evil" being a part of human nature, deeper than the Bible because people can definitely be stupid/opportunistic!
    "Perhaps then, not malice-bound like that!"

    Our side, the Religious need to stand on the view that Christianity and the other Religious convictions go deeper in human beings than the malicious mind, that mostly people want to go to Heaven (by Christianity, other for the others), to be of a good nature to one another.

    Final claim by this: stupidity is to blame for some (perception of) "evil" in the World, that the Religious life is the deepest in humanity and that these Religious views are the winners, almost by postulate, either in being in humanity now or that the last Religious people have left life for the Maker of the Universe, the Grand Architect, God etc., so as to equate these Religious views with the standing of Mathematics in the Universe. One can burn the mathematics books, but mathematics is bigger than every human being's nose and lives on in the Universe in being TRUE! (Also see the (social) invalidators of Math by Social Power! Pokemon total power?!)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just to mention some motivational, under Human Beings as God's Miracle:
    Joan Osborne - One of us by url, YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USR3bX_PtU4 . "We are the strongest and the BEST!"

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Dark Energy considerations as "secret" celebration from "Atheism" in proving "not-possible-God" in representing a kind of energy constant by the whole of the Universe, the well-known energy preservation principle also from thermal physics must fall by Karl Popper's two requirements for decent science, i.e., the falsification requirement or the fallibilism requirement or both!

    That is,

    the energy preservation principle over the Universe by WMAP-data, background radiation data -> not-possible God Conclusion: Not-possible God by Modus Ponens

    must fall because of Karl Popper's two requirements for decent science, i.e., the falsification requirement or the fallibilism requirement or both!

    Either way, a research description that's credible must first be made and they need to show that they have NO corrupt motivations for conducting the research! That is, some other freaks who want to subject the World to freak nature are supposed to be granted a go-ahead because the primary and official researchers for investigating the research think that "it may bring something"!

    Freak nature is only one thing: the results of torturing people hideously!

    Also, the religious confidence point must also count in favour for the religious side, although a bit on the side of the arguments playing out.

    Another point for the Religious side is that "Atheism" (now reverted (back) to Humanism) is archaic by the Aristotelian "Natural Life Cycle" view. Therefore, all religions can be considered more modern than the view originating from the text of Aristotle. Besides, given the later development on both sides makes this more definite, because the Religious side has developed into the civilised while the "Atheist" has developed negatively despite the order from Aristotle himself to develop society by his text named "Politics" describing exactly the "political animal", well known in the "Atheist" circles, but "maybe not in this sense. There seems to be a "slave"-word in there."

    Summary: 2 points more on the Religious side. 1 point pro-"Atheism" refuted or not foreseeably successful (by far).

    ReplyDelete
  12. A slight sub-point more, as we turn to the Bible anew, by its storytelling nature, thus yielding a new approach and increasing the appeal and confidence of Religious people "ten-folds":

    By http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2012/01/project-for-scientific-bible-philosophy.html - Having a name like this: The Scientific Bible 2.0 - Commentary. (Only for all valid holy books, incl. Septuagint, the Vulgate and the Hebrew Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Defences are no less strengthening to the Religious people and appealing to those outside of it by this, also with the "powerlist" of Philosophers:

    http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/09/part-of-easy-way-to-religion-and.html - (A Part of) The Easy Way to Religion and Stalwartly So , remember the 51 Comments.

    ReplyDelete
  14. (Sorry for not being entirely forthcoming on one aspect or more of our great strengths together.)

    There's some additional info to various Religions, by Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism and others, for the ecumenical, depending...:

    The Heaven entailment, of NDNID, clearly needs rephrasing, but represents no problem with any Reincarnation religion, like in Hinduism, by adding a solution that says "a kind of crossroads before being reincarnated or reaching Nirvana with the preceding psychological confidence too", that this must be the reality of this Religion "in question", i.e., by name of Religion, or /this/ Religion to use the demonstrative.

    Additionally: The ecumenical miracle, coming with the "Best wishes for all (who are Religious),", "Ecumenism for All - The World Communion of Religiousness", Some premises that makes this happen, few or many:
    1. One is generous about the social issues, some people have troubles living in poor India and so on.
    2. One skip some detalis such as kosher kitchen and halal meet and stay with core ethics (of Humanism) and preserve the understanding of grandness that's nicely entailed in all these religions, God as creator of all in the Universe, poss. of Nirvana, a good nod to reincarnation, the rest that's impossible to prove and most certainly not worthy to kill for or go harms way over.
    3. One is open about one's own religion and displays openness the other way to, to learn other people's religions, not necessarily to shun one's own or try to be dominating, but merely to listen in and willing to peacefully impart from one's own Holy Book, whether the Bible, Torah, Quran or the others.

    We have now entered World Communion of Religiousness forever and with emotional awareness ("telepathy" to be cautious) this is just the best glitz EVER! :-D :-D 8-) 8-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Atheism" Killed More

    By Avicenna

    in promoting "Atheism"/(their) Atheism, as he writes:

    "We don't have a moral high ground. The moral high ground that religious people claim to hold doesn't exist because in order to have a moral high ground you need to demonstrate that your ethos is the path of least harm."

    First, we, the Religious recognise that we've been admitted the moral high ground straight. Certainly, by understanding laws and regulations in practice, we understand what it takes to provide leadership in terms of responsibility. They can't provide moral leadership because they fail morality to start with.

    Second, we expect nothing different from them, in them saying "no harm to my Atheist body, but that I'm more than willing to commit anything you want if I can get out of this, unharmed", that I consider to be their possible attack on all of humanity/human kind. Because if we combine failure to express morality in the first place and then they say that they comply to all that makes them unharmed, unknown how this entire/coherent story of theirs unfold, this makes for a very dangerous kind of "agency"/life philosophy because they are then susceptible to behave in numerous, unreliable ways. Indeed, they have unfriended themselves from humanity.

    (Third, what if the Atheist meets the Atheist, will we then have the two people fighting one-another so as to go unharmed in a modern day equivalent to dog-fights that are illegal to start, also by moral leadership?)

    "Atheism" still no more.

    PS: Logical structure is no problem for me, but I want it declared if the readers want me to do it, by plain message, text, email, Facebook...

    ReplyDelete
  16. The missing url from above is:
    < http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/?author=8794 >

    ----

    One charge against (irresponsible, not having changed their archaic Aristotle description the last 2300 years) "Atheism":

    There is no God → Human beings are animals (tenet no. 2) → When people are animals why not "a bit", like in Carnivorism? → Life is then life and money must be life because then you can do more? → How is Ethics in all of this? That I can have life with money, but Ethics... No, money is life. → If now death can't be perceived as anything else than "blackness", why not...? → That Ethics... No Ethics? I got it! → No Ethics, no society? This must be logical. Also by late Freudian-Carnivore-Psychologists!

    "I am not logical?", the "Atheist" asks!

    Here we are! The challenges are definitely alive. Humanism now? You see it too?

    ----

    Words of character, lately:

    Pastor John Hagee:

    "The Bible says: “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is no God’.” Atheists say there is no God. Let me tell you that atheism has never painted a masterpiece. Atheism has never dispelled fear. Atheism has never healed a disease; faith in God has, but not atheism. Atheism has never given anyone piece of mind. Atheism has never dried a tear. Atheism has never given an intellectual answer to the creation. Atheism is bankrupt and empty; it’s brain dead."

    "It is believed that when people stop believing in God, they believe nothing. That’s wrong. When people no longer believe in God, they will believe in anything. That’s why they start hugging trees. That’s why they start staring into crystals, joining cults, running into the woods, ripping off their shirts, baying at the moon, "because it’s something intellectual [not really, they are atheists] people do when they get frustrated"."

    Url to Pastor John Hagee: http://www.jhm.org/ .

    PS: Restraining liking. That is, I'm not "extreme". I consider myself Liberal Christian, by Modern, Moderate Christian. I think the public church has to comply with the Human Rights of UDHR or go private, that is, to become a private (club) congregation inside the privacy laws, but strictly still, inside laws and regulations (of USA or other), commonplace.

    ----

    More to the Team:

    True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism

    Tom Gilson (Author), Carson Weitnauer (Author)

    Print Length: 278 pages
    Publisher: Patheos Press (March 9, 2012)
    Language: English
    ASIN: B007J71S62

    Find out more:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007J71S62/
    http://shop.patheos.com/collections/patheos-ebooks/products/true-reason .

    ReplyDelete
  17. That he, Pastor John Hagee, intends to say:
    "Atheism has never given anyone "piece"/peace of mind." in the sense that piece here means that Religion adds to intelligence because it cares for humanity, for human values, of the true education and therefore, in the most true sense, it adds to intelligence to the degree one is able to live with the Bible and practice the 10 Commandments, supported by the 7 Cardinal Sins on one's way to Heaven/Reincarnation.

    To be Religious is to be intelligent in all aspects is the message for the Religious! Also from Pastor John Hagee.

    ----

    More too, questions. What is it with "Atheism" and cultist activities, voodoo, experimentation with drugs, drugs as life-style, E.T.-life-style, "suspended over all of humanity", deeply fascinated with insects and how they ATTACK, and E. O. Wilson and Sociobiology and love camps in declaring the best Conan, the Barbarian there? What is it with "Atheism" and blackness and damp caves, and leathers of "various qualities" and more "food policies than God could dream of"? The questions concerning "Atheism" never end. Let's ask as much as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Necessity of Atheism or not:
    I find it typical that by the first Atheist text of the English language, naming Karl Marx on top of it, that the text is definite toward trying to narrow "the legal spectrum of thought" to what only the eyes can see, referring to the other so-called evidence-based rationale.

    However, the author, Percy Bysshe Shelley, seems to neglect the already existing legal objectivity, barring both theologians and psychiatrists/psychologists.

    It gets no better with the dead and gone legacy of Soviet Union either, known for its violations of people's privacy and other Human Rights as well as seeing Religion as dangerous to Human Kind, that "Religion has been an opium to the people"!

    "Atheism" sinks deeper!

    Url: The Necessity of Atheism by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Necessity_of_Atheism ,
    please, check with the original text too, one being from 1913, not bothering to date "Atheism" to more than 100 years, not very much!

    ReplyDelete
  19. History of Atheism with it, Wikip., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism , not much left of it in terms of the appeal we now should have against it, us representing the World religions. Cheers! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another one to "Atheism", other than "Atheist love camps":
    "Atheism", I guess "Atheism" is liberal, is known to support all life-philosophies outside the religions, I guess, especially the whitelist religions. But what about the Cults? Can Atheism guarantee that Atheism is cult-free? What is Atheism going to say to the worried mother who wonders about letting her good son to join Atheism? Is the worry well founded so as to join Christianity instead? We wonder. The questions are many.

    Is it not so also that Atheism is known to support some "very" strict hierarchies too? Let's assume hedonism and much egoism and some power involved, pecking orders, money, the rest... What do you think? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just in case Atheism tries it with ~□God, the negative necessity of God...

    Just in case Atheism comes up with a crazy ~□God then we, the Religious, walk up the ladder another step with an appeal to logical soundness by "Explanatory Completeness" in that God provides a better SENSE by fulfilling Ethics, Meaning, Eternity and Perfection by Soul and Telepathy than the Human Nature Atheism does!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Finally a video presentation, uploaded to YouTube and then embedded here, to make this whole issue more accessible. I hope you like it:

    The Defences for God Explained, myself presenting it

    (Now you know about by direct message.)

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Atheism brings nothing new" means that, seemingly, Atheism/"Atheism" has no ethical considerations to develop, has no history for doing so and is not at the forefront for expressing ethical concerns!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I add Frank Turek to this listing despite the fact that we are many, probably, and growing! I don't share his view on gay/lesbian marriage (although I'm not gay myself (or secretly so, no, I'm straight)). Also, I don't share his view of Intelligent Design to the full depth. However, "inside the Religious class" I find it complementary to other views and arguments. The force of it, though, can be discussed.
    On YouTube against David
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtumpeHDnbA

    His line of argumentation:
    C is for Cosmos is concluded with Turek’s argument for fine tuning
    R is for Reason
    I is for Information
    M is for Morality
    E is for Evil and
    S is for Science

    There are more philosophers listed with the blogposting of "(A Part of) The Easy Way to Religion and Stalwartly So". Also the "powerlist" of philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If the Intelligent Design is so incredibly "trademarked" that I can't be "allowed" NDNID then I revert mine to Non-Dogmatic Grand Architecture, NDGA (after Thomas Paine and the U.S. constitution), which is just as good!

    (And without the big egos from them as well.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. In Atheism trying to raise the Problem of Evil "in 2nd power", I'll basically reply to these "wide scale evil" accusations (which are to some extent plausible) that the Bible is also the story of the Judgment Day, a kind of fatalist story! (Please, see the appropriate metaphysics for Fatalism.)

    ----

    While writing the above, I may claim the right to say that my Defences for God constitute (a weaker class of) proof!

    ReplyDelete