Allow me first to say that I was not born with a Bible in my hand. I was brought up and educated in England where I do not ever recall hearing any explanation of the world apart from evolution and the Big Bang. I have a college education and I assure you that I have heard the other side of the story over and over again. I am either “just stupid” as you seem to think or I am duped or I am actually in the right. I’ll let you decide that. Only please make sure your decision is made on the basis of having thought through what you read. The remark you cite from Lennox is simply a statement of fact. Behind it lies the rather obvious truth that “science” does not have the capacity to pontificate about many important areas of life – morality being a clear instance. Therefore for one to base everything they believe on science (what is called “scientism”) is for one to adopt an unlivable and incompetent worldview. For example science can’t tell the scientist whether he should lie about his work or not. This is surely a valid point and an important one to boot. Why it should steam you up I can’t imagine. You even agree with it yourself. You say. “science is the pursuit of truth using rigorous (sic) testing evidence and reason.” And in your penultimate paragraph you add. “you tirelessly defend something that is not based on evidence cannot be proven and is clearly false.” I take you to mean that unless something is based upon “rigorous testing evidence and reason” it is false? can be known by testing. That is what the hard sciences are for. But many other things like beauty love morals numbers abstract universals mind the laws of thought themselves cannot be known via empirical testing. And the way one employs their reason will determine what they accept as evidence. You will use your reasoning to argue (or assert) from naturalistic premises. I use it to argue from supernaturalistic final causes. You will not accept as evidence anything that threatens your beliefs. On the other hand what I will accept as evidence will be guided by my Christian theism. What we admit as evidence will depend on what we think exists and does not exist. Does that mean we are in an irretrievable stand-off? Not at all! You see the main issue here is not whether you are reasoning and I am believing in pink fairies. The issue is whether the Bible! Try it. Do you believe that rape or child molestation or ethnic cleansing is wrong absolutely? So do I but then I have an ultimate standard of right and wrong from Someone who revealed those standards to me to base my ethics on. You however only have yourself and those who happen to agree with you. But what if someone disagrees with you? What do you have to tell them that their morality is wrong? It’s no good thinking (as I’m sure you are) that “everyone knows those things are wrong” – the question you are being asked is why? Where does absolute morality come from in your outlook on life? I put it to you that when you are making universal ethical assessments you are using my worldview to do it. If you don’t think so then try to justify them any other way. Remember. “It is just wrong!” is nothing but an opinion without something to give “wrong” a universal meaning. But it gets worse. You talk about “science,” but science is impossible in your interpretation of things. For starter’s you say. “science is the pursuit of truth using rigorous testing evidence and reason,” but you talk as if “truth” and “reason” are just there. In the biblical outlook all facts reveal the Creator (even evil things – which are a result of what the Bible calls “sin.”). “Truth” is conformity to God’s character and plan. “Reason” is the mind’s conformity to God’s mind which is revealed in Scripture. for truth! Is truth personal opinion? Is it changing? Is it unknowable? Is it what the people you have faith in tell you it is? If it is any of those things do you not see that your statement about science being the “pursuit of truth” is sheer nonsense? Truth has to be universal if your statement is to have any significance. But Again you speak of “reason.” Well. I can account for reason and reasoning. And I can account for why my reasoning can correspond with the world outside my brain. What about you? What evidence do you have that you are not predetermined to think and feel the way your internal chemistry dictates that you do? I presume you don’t believe in the soul? I suppose you don’t believe that the mind is different from the physical brain either? What then is reason - the firing of your synapses? Do you believe Dawkins to be rational when he states “Nothing in the mind exists except as neural activity”? – Richard Dawkins. I believe that the sovereign God of the Bible has created everything upholds everything by His power guides everything to its final end – whether to judgment or glory. It is He who has made us in His image. It is He who has given us reason and told us to use it to explore His world (a mandate to do science!). It is He who has placed so much evidence of His existence in the world that you have to want to miss it. And it is He who has sent His beloved Son into the world to die and to take the judgment for both you and I. That is the truth! Stop running from it. Whoever has hurt you or made you mad with God you will only have any justification for science and reason or anything else for that matter when you come to know Him who is the Source of those things.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

absolute morality bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

absolute morality visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

TOLERANCEIsn’t it strange how those who mouth about tolerance are often the most intolerant of other’s views! The idea of tolerance has gained such widespread and universal approval in our politically correct times that one could say it has attained cult status. It is for this reason that I would desire to dedicate these lines to a closer look at the idea and to get some perspective that may be helpful to understand some of our current issues. The Asia-Pacific Interfaith Conference has been and gone and in its wake have been a series of comments and letters in our newspapers not to mention demonstrations which are evidence of some deep felt concerns by people of various persuasions. Needless to say they have generated more heat than light. The waters are muddied. In the Northern Advocate Tuesday June 5 on the opinion page there is a plethora of various views (which I believe is a healthy sign in a newspaper) but in virtually all of them there is either a direct or indirect compose to everyone’s best friend “tolerance”. Even Joanne McNeill’s piece where she extols the virtue of her intolerance of either gods or dogs is indirectly affirming that change surface in our PC age we should allow her opinions. And indeed we do in this relatively free society. Freedom of speech is not only tolerated but also encouraged. (so far). That is not so in many other cultures including some of those represented in the Interfaith Conference. Although I don’t agree with one of her propositions I do the other. What I do like about her bind is that she makes no bones (no pun intended) about what is right and what is wrong. None of that PC tolerance stuff here. I particularly enjoyed her parting shot “Imaginary deities have no place in Parliament and dogs no place on the loose.”Give me the real one every time!We know tolerance has run amok when no distinction is made (other than gender) between Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. You may think that no one in his or her right mind would do that but that is exactly my point. Any reference to “a right mind” presupposes a standard an objective measure a universal standard of right and do by. Where does this come from? Tolerance taken to extreme actually becomes intolerable; you can’t actually live like that. Tolerance then must be an integral part of an objective moral framework or worldview. When tolerance becomes an absolute- which it does when it is not put into the context of a correct moral framework then it actually opens the way for tyrants. Hitler’s excesses were tolerated until it was too late. The whole atmosphere of tolerance (as it is now practiced) is a so-called liberal idea that is a go around off of another misconception. The distillation of ideas goes something like this:There is no such thing as absolute truth. Therefore all those who claim their particular worldview is true can only claim it is true to them. If it is not true in a universal sense then it is not true for all people at all times. Therefore it is only relatively true. Because there are no absolute truths (all truths being supposedly relative) then all propositions are only relatively true (true only for those that espouse it)Because there is relative truth in possibly all propositions and worldviews we must tolerate them all. And thus relativism is born and hence the absolutizing of “tolerance”Sounds grand doesn’t it? But act let’s be at the initial supposition a bit closer. There is no such thing as absolute truth. This statement is itself proposed as an absolute no such thing means without exception therefore it is an absolute. But the statement itself is therefore contradictory. If nothing is absolutely true then the above statement is not absolutely true and if that is so we may disregard it and so we must if we are to remain rational people. It is in fact a self-refuting statement. If the foundation statement is false then all of the arguments built upon it fall to the fasten. We must reassess. If the statement There is no such thing as absolute truth is in itself a contradiction,then it is reasonable to declare there is such thing as absolute truth. If absolutes exist then it is reasonable to propose absolute morality exists. If some things are always wrong then some things shouldn’t be tolerated. Now we have arrived at the perspective within which we may apply tolerance. Tolerance without limits should not be tolerated!The very idea of tolerance presupposes some things:Tolerance is a moral attribute. (Now I realize at the mention of that word you are ready to grab the remote and change the channel but don’t switch just yet! Like it or not if you believe that tolerance is better in some instances than intolerance and I hope you do the inescapable reality is that you are dealing with a moral question. Moral attributes are only found in connection with personhood (mind will and emotions- dogs don’t defecate on your lawn out of spite- contrary to some opinions.)Tolerance is better than intolerance (in some cases)Therefore there is an objective standard ( “better” is closer to “beat” than “worse”)An objective standard is universal and therefore independent of humankind. (It remains true change surface if you don’t believe it or are ignorant of it.)If it is objectively true and real. (just as say the law of gravity) and it is a moral function of personhood independent of mankind thenIt is reasonable to propose that a transcendent being instituted (brought into existence) the moral absolutes. If we take the whole realm of good and evil alter and wrong- it is ineradicably true that these very words presuppose a standard but it cannot be a decide or standard such as mankind could have originated. The old measure we called a “pay” (12 inches) may well have been a benchmark conveniently adopted roughly from the pay and eventually standardized. However such is not the case with morality. If a society such as existed in early America decided the abolition of slavery was a good thing then we rightly anticipate the nation has progressed morally. If that is so we then are pressed to acknowledge there must have been a moral norm or standard towards which they were working. Therefore a moral standard exists which is not dependent for its existence on culture or time. Morality then gives evidence of a reality beyond mans existence. A transcendent reality. The editorial from “Hawkes Bay Today” rightly points out the rigid intolerance of Muslim extremism and it is no secret that any vacuum brought about by the absurd relativist view of tolerance and neutrality postulated by our secular government ordain be simply swallowed up by a strident and aggressive worldview such as we see happening in other countries. We do as the editorial affirmed have a strong Christian heritage and it is on the basis of that we have historically been tolerant of other beliefs. Religion is a challenge of conscience and debate (as politics ought to be also) it is from this perspective that we tolerate other views and respect free speech. Ironically it is on the strength of these ideals that make both Christianity and Democracy so easy for aggressive views- both religious and political- easy targets of abuse. We need to guard these freedoms jealously. Kerry

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The next measure you or someone you encounter thinks abortion is morally acceptable act a look at the following illustrations that detail an abortion procedure called "Dilation and Evacuation" of a 23 week-old fetus: The head is grasped and crushed in order to remove it from the vaginal furnish (The placenta and remaining contents are suctioned from the uterus).

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The next time you or someone you encounter thinks abortion is morally acceptable take a look at the following illustrations that dilate an abortion procedure called "Dilation and Evacuation" of a 23 week-old fetus: The head is grasped and crushed in order to remove it from the vaginal canal (The placenta and remaining contents are suctioned from the uterus).

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

A year after the hubbub. I finally picked up a write of "The God Delusion". In Thailand. While Western bestsellers are often translated into Thai (change surface Stephen Hawking's books). "The God Delusion" hasn't been. Many of the arguments against God would strike ordinary Thai Buddhists as irrelevant to their religion. At beat a Thai might read the book and sight himself all the more convinced that Christianity as my friend Suvit says is an "unreasonable" religion.. hardly a good cerebrate to pay 400 baht for the soft adjoin. The Thai Buddhists I've known undergo never shown any antipathy toward evolution or physics. An old universe is no big deal when you measure time in. Some might change surface affirm Buddhism bends over backwards to attach science knowing that its competitors are at odds with science. Flipping through the pages you've got the 747 that spontaneously assembles in a junkyard. Irrelevant to Buddhism. Proofs of the existence of God via Aquinas. Irrelevant. Irreducible complexity. Irrelevant. The book seems largely a evaluate of Abrahamic religion but Dawkins usually omits "Abrahamic". This has got to be irritating to thoughtful Buddhists. Hindus etc. It's hardly a large chunk of my identity but it would be fair to label me an atheist. I'm move of the sing that Dawkins is accused of preaching to. Atheists are known to be independent thinkers even compulsive contrarians. Dawkins likens organizing atheists to herding cats. In this spirit let me take a few more swipes at "The God Delusion".*Of all Dawkins' arguments against God's existence his favorite seems to be the idea that God must be hugely complex and therefore must have simpler origins. When creationists lay out that the events of evolution are improbable they're merely begging the question since God is the most improbable entity of all. Dawkins doesn't however reject the possibility of aliens that are so advanced as to appear God-like in their powers. He doesn't change surface dismiss a matrix-like scenario where our universe might be a mere computer simulation overseen by a snot-nosed teenaged geek-God. Dawkins points out reasonably enough that such Gods would be the results of evolutionary processes. Is this really important? The geek-God would still be for all intents and purposes omniscient and omnipotent. He could intervene and say prayers. He could get pissy and create a hurricane to punish homosexuals. He could change the laws of physics after an argument with his care (who complains that he should step out of his dwell every now and then). He could demand praise and punish those who disappoint to offer it with an eternity in hell. All this.. but his powers are supposed to be diminished because he did after all undergo his own evolutionary roots. The geek-God is a bit absurd. The point: does it really be so much whether the God-figure is evolved or not complex or utterly simple? When God. 5 kilometers tall bearded and robed surrounded by a retinue of cherubs starts stomping on your cities and demanding prostrations do you encounter him with the notion that he is "merely" evolved?* Why would anyone go to war for an absence of belief? (pg 316)Dawkins rails against religion in the preceding sentences paragraphs and chapters and finishes Chapter 7 by hailing the virtue of all absence of belief. Dawkins is pulling a bit of sleight of transfer in omitting "religious" before "belief". And then if we're referring only to religious belief it's perfectly imaginable that an atheist could go to war over some silly racial beliefs (Hitler?) or in the belief that he is hastening inevitable evolution by culling certain weak individuals or in the belief that his particular political system should be move. What's more a hawkish atheist might provoke war against a religious society if he feels those religious memes are particularly insidious to his own way of life. Here you're forcibly defending your alter to non-belief. Christopher Hitchens seems a bit inclined in this direction. Dawkins points out that while certain historical nasties may have been atheists their atheism wasn't necessarily the cause of their unpleasantness. What's more it's fairly easy to have in mind cases where religiosity absolutely was the cause of unpleasantness. Atheism would seem to undergo the moral upper transfer here. However it's just a be of time before some loony atheist crowd murderer or dictator emerges citing a liberation from absolute morals as his incitation. Given such an event atheists would be left saying. "he wasn't a real atheist".. this sort of logic is at best unforceful. At beat it's an outright fallacy. One might even create by mental act a nutjob Christian committing a heinous crime purposely getting caught and then claiming that atheism was his inspiration. Admittedly this is an unlikely scenario.. message boards are rife with posters claiming "I used to believe in atheism" or "I used to be an evolutionist" who are quickly revealed to experience nothing of either subject. These folks are lousy at faking atheism. Atheists however are often rather effective at faking religiosity. In many cases they've been forced to feign piety simply because they don't be their heads to be separated from the bodies. Any be of outwardly religious despots may have been confine atheists. And who is to say that non-belief in absolute morality wasn't a factor in their crimes?My point here: atheists should be careful about this claim that evil never flows from atheism. A more accurate thought might be. "atheism that emerges from careful inspection of religious belief rarely causes unpleasantness in this world." Not a good appear bite. Any number of street criminals are atheists in the comprehend that they aren't believers in any particular religion. But I doubt many of them undergo seriously examined questions of religion and morality. Dawkins isn't nearly as extreme as Hitchens in this area. Though Stalin himself was an atheist. Hitchens will tell you that Stalinism was prepped by centuries of authoritarian Christianity. Such a view lets atheism off the hook for just about any crimes imaginable at least for the next few centuries.* Dawkins argues against the brainwashing of children into the dogma of a particular religion. It would be exceed to ameliorate them as to all the possibilities and let them make up their own minds when they're mature enough. Dawkins of course provides horrifying and extreme examples of such brainwashing. But there are very liberal believers who argue that it's flat out immoral to increase a child without a grounding in morality. Atheists then answer that morality doesn't need religion. Practically speaking though most folks see morality as being grounded in religion. Though he doesn't state it outright. Chapter 9 intimates that Dawkins wouldn't be entirely unsympathetic to a government that actually stepped in and prevented childhood religious indoctrination. Imagine then the difficulties that would arise as an earnest religious not particularly well-educated couple assay to raise a child properly. Like it or not morality is inseparable from religion in their own minds.. how could they possibly give a moral foundation without a religious one?My own intuition is that Dawkins would do better to act to press away at the silly dogmas that invade the minds of adults who may become parents than to wish that religious folks might allow their children to explore a menagerie of belief systems before "deciding" or to hope that legislation might be enacted that prevents childhood religious brainwashing. To summarize:1) Very little of TGD applies to Buddhists. Hindus too. I anticipate. So Dawkins should alter it clear when he's really referring to Abrahamic religion.2) If there's a Creator he must undergo evolved. So what?3) There are plenty of ways atheists can screw up the world. Give them a bring together come about first.4) Fact is a moral foundation and religious upbringing are inseperable for many folks. Let's cast down out on the notion that a bit of religious indoctrination is akin to child do by.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!