Skip to content


  1. Serge Agafonoff
    02 August 2013 @ 12:06 pm

    To say that 'atheism will always be intellectually viable … in most educated populations' may be a bridge too far.  My friend Dr Phil (no, not that one) sent me a copy of this aticle from the current New Scientist.

    Quantum weirdness: The battle for the basis of reality. 
    New Scientist 5 August 2013 by Michael Brooks, subtitled:
    Reality, relativity, causality or free will? Take quantum theory at face value and at least one of them is an illusion – but which?

    Phil had this to say, by way of introduction:
    "An article from the lastest New Scientist re quantum weirdness. Now, I must admit, I didn't expect an article in a mainline science mag to come this close to a metaphysical explanation of what seems to be 'weird' in the quantum world – at least weird to those stuck in a causal deterministic paradigm. Perhaps they are getting desperate! Difficult for those who hold that 'many' scientists are freely performing experiments of their own choice rather than one supra-personal connected mind in the process of 'waking up' from a dream of 'many'!!" 

    And that reminded me of a small book I recently read which was partly devoted to explaining the philosophy of Georg Hegel.  Hegel said of his work, 'I have written God's autobiography.'  He clearly is making no attempt to defend skepticism.  Quite the opposite. But he was also no fan of the 'established' religions of his day.

    Hegel was one of hte first to raise the question as to whether Mind (Consciousnes) is a product (emergent property) of matter, or whether matter is in fact a property of Mind.  Hegel chose the latter and his work on the 'dialectic,' (later misused and misappropriated by Marx et al) is a powerful attempt to show how Absolute Mind (God/Geist/Spirit) comes to know Him/Itself.  Matter, he seems to suggest, is an interim step in this process.
    Reminds me of Paul's statement:  Eph 4:6  'One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.'

  2. earl calahan
    02 August 2013 @ 7:51 pm

    Where would the world be w/o love? What would be the restraints, w/o love.Train up a child in the way of….love, and he will not depart from it!!!! The child of love is most priviledged. i am speaking here not of cold hard facts presented on paper, but of gentle, total warmth, in a protective cocoon, free of stress and danger, or of questionable uncertaintees, teaching values of responsibility and commitment as the child grows to adulthood. How many children on Earth have had that type of upbringing. Unless the child has inborn mental hinderances, it will respond to this nurturing in a positive delightful personality. Did you have this type of love in your childhood? In the 21st century, children are thrust out into a violent life scene of survival of the fittest, the strongest and meanest survivors and gutter talking, and "beautifully clad people" walking the red carpet, eating & drinking & dosing, are the popular role models. Close to 50% uncertain of who "daddy" is. The love that Christianity is all about is to make sure the children are not educated to that type of existence. i believe that selftaught atheists did not receive a love nurturing childhood that also permitted self expression as they aged. To me, love is warm, non-belief is cold-d-d. Christianity is togetherness, atheism is solitary confinement.

    1.Earthly justice is blind, and becoming non-existent.Vengence is mine/the LORD.

    2.The supernatural myths are kool, and give assurance of God's love.Very valuable

    3. Love God and your neighbor, the very best ethics.

    4.Domination, whether religious or uncivilized is annihilation. We are eternal in the Lord.

    5. Disagreement of evolution claims. So be it. Sorry for you.

    6. Of course the traditions and myths are human, we are the ones with the brains,
    right? i notice great differences in the many religions and isms, but the origins are supernaturally communicated to us by the Creator's Spirit. Sorry this causes you trauma, we will pray for you. What else can we do?

  3. Stephen Ferguson
    03 August 2013 @ 9:32 am

    Atheism is a waste of time, and impossible to achieve.  That's what I get out of Dr Wilbur's chapter.  God might be something hardwired into our heads but that is the point – it is hardwired into it.  Saying one is going to create a human society without God (whatever you want to call It/He/She) is about as likely to happen as creating a society without air – it's not going to happen – period.  

    Even in 'atheistic' Western societies, organised religion is dead.  And yet in those same soceities there has been a massive rise in alternative forms of spirituality, from Jedi knights, to Vampires, to Hogwart Wizards.

    Richard Dawkins talks about God Delusions.  But the biggest God delusion of them all is the idea that one can have a society without God.  So who is deluding who?

  4. Darrel Lindensmith
    04 August 2013 @ 1:50 am

    Aldous Huxley  seems to contradict the view that atheism does not give warm fuzzies and ego strokes to her converts:
    I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves…For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.     Ends and Means  p.270


  5. cb25
    04 August 2013 @ 3:49 am


    What is it about you and I? Every second time I read what you write, I find it intensely frustrating. You err endlessly.

    Aldous Huxleys "quote".

    The quote you have given is an absolutelly butchered version of what he actually wrote. I strongly suspect you lifted it from a conservative or fundamentalist writer, who was bent on their own biased apologetic.

    It is as if you just troll through the net and other resources looking for data, material or quotes to shore up you already stubbornly held opinions. Have you ever considered actually laying aside conclusions in order to examine the evidence and letting it lead where it wishes?

    Your beliefs are like a quantum particle! Their position is already decided by pre existing bias before their position is measured. You will only ever get the outcome you anticipate because your bias has already determined it!

    Please have a read of this link where this very quote is discussed and shown to be blantantly deceptive.

  6. Darrel Lindensmith
    04 August 2013 @ 4:03 am

    Actually, I have Huxley's book at home.  I am on the road now.  But I will look up the quote which is underlined in my book.  So, Chris, why don't you tell me what it is you don't like about Huxley's statement??

  7. cb25
    04 August 2013 @ 4:42 am

    The quote as you have put it gives a different impression than appears to be the intent of the original author.

     I did not say I did or did not like Huxley's statement!

    Am I correct you got the quote from some other source?

  8. Darrel Lindensmith
    04 August 2013 @ 4:50 am

    As I stated, I am on the road and do not have my books with me, so yes I got the quote off the web because I could not remember correctly.  However I have read his book.  And I will look up the larger context in a few days Chris.   What is the "correct" impression or correct meaning that you feel Huxley is attempting?

  9. cb25
    04 August 2013 @ 5:08 am

    Read the context of his quote, read the link I gave you, and then tell me:

    Is the meaning implied/suggested in your quote above the same as that given by a contextual read in the original book?

    I would suggest his original intent had little to nothing to do with "warm fuzzies and ego strokes" as far as either justification, motivation, or reward, for rejecting God per se.

  10. JaNe
    17 August 2013 @ 1:10 am

    Dude, try reading the Bible sometime instead….

  11. cb25
    17 August 2013 @ 1:30 am

    I did:)