FSTDT

Jeremy Choate #fundie sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

Keely asks: What evidence is there for the existence of God?

What Evidence are We Looking For?

When you ask about the evidence for God’s existence, the first question we have to ask is, “what evidence are we prepared to receive?” If you and I travel to an alien planet, and we find a million stones arranged in a perfect pyramid, even without seeing the cause, firsthand, or finding a plaque or having any idea who arranged them that way, we would quickly conclude that an intelligent agent was the cause. The pyramid, itself, would be the strongest evidence. In order to determine whether it occurred naturally or by intelligent design, there’s very little evidence we would require beyond our common intuition.

If you’re looking for evidence that will grab you by your intellectual lapels and force you into belief, there is not such evidence – OF ANYTHING. Even with my pyramid example, anyone can simply assert there is no proof that an intelligent agent created the pyramid and continue their inquiry into purely naturalistic causes.

Even in a murder case, there is no evidence that will force jurors into convicting or acquitting. Some evidence is more compelling than others, but since none of them were there when the murder was committed, they are taking the best evidence they have been presented, considering what is most plausible, and making the best judgment they can – but it’s still a leap of faith.

Jeremy Choate #fundie sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

It is difficult for the proponent of the individual right to keep and bear arms to understand how any person would wish to outsource their own personal safety to another human being and surrender their right to defend themselves. Law enforcement officers are sheepdogs, standing in defiance of the wolves, but they cannot be everywhere at all times, nor would we want them to be. However, when you delve into the mind of the hoplosynanthropophobe, you encounter two very powerful emotions – denial and crippling fear.

While they fire off impassioned epistles about predators using fearsome-looking weapons to destroy the lives of scores of innocent people, they live in abject denial that such a thing could ever happen to them. When their fellow citizens speak of arming themselves in anticipation of such an event, it challenges the false sense of security that their denial has provided, and they lash out in fear. They then fall back on the unjustified gun-toter stereotypes they’ve constructed and gleefully use them to validate their fear.

The most fundamental right that all human beings have is the right to protect themselves and their loved ones from those who would seek to destroy them. Conversely, human beings also have the right to waive that privilege, for whatever reason, if they so choose. However, what we cannot do is force another human being to surrender his right to self-defense simply because we are uncomfortable with the possibility that a dangerous weapon might be in our midst.

For you hoplosynanthropophobes out there, be a sheep, if you like, but don’t expect the sheepdogs of society to put on a wool coat and join you. You can label gun-owners as Walter Mittys, rednecks, or Neanderthals until your self-importance meter is pegged out, but as civil trial attorney and author Kurt Schlicter advised one of Frum’s Twitter minions, make sure you wait to do it until after they’ve saved your life.

Jeremy Choate #fundie #homophobia sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

Dan Cathy, son of Truett Cathy and CEO of Chick-Fil-A, created a firestorm of controversy, recently, by announcing that he believes marriage to be defined as the union between one man and one woman. Predictably, the oh-so tolerant left has fixed its cannons on Chick-Fil-A and is currently engaged in a boycott against “hateful chicken.” While I do not begrudge the individual American citizen the God-given right to vote with his wallet, I am extremely disturbed by the blatant First Amendment violations that are potentially at hand with mayors of large American cities threatening to use the power of government to interfere in the business plans of a company because of the personal views of its chief executive. I hope that Constitutional principles will prevail, but in these days of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, my faith in judicial review is admittedly shaken.

One cannot turn on the television or peruse the internet, now, without being absolutely inundated with the language of marriage equality rights. Either the theories concerning the media echo chamber are correct, or someone is publishing daily talking points, since everyone on the left appears to be using this particular language. In fact, it was reported that the Democratic National Committee will announce marriage equality rights as an official plank of the Democratic Party platform at its convention in September. However, before declaring something as a foundational piece of one’s political dogma, it would help to ask if such a thing even exists.

Brace yourselves for a shock. Homosexuals enjoy the exact same rights as every other American group. This seems a controversial statement on its face considering that homosexual marriage is not yet legally recognized by the majority of states in the union. To those driven more by passionate emotional appeals than by reason and logic, this statement seems patently, even offensively, incorrect, but this statement is logically airtight based on the definition of what constitutes a right and based on the absurdities that arise when we carry the negation of that statement to its logical conclusion.

When I say that homosexuals enjoy the exact same rights as every other American group, I am actively denouncing the manifestly incorrect allegation that there is a ban on homosexual marriage. The truth is, if two homosexual people wish to engage in casual sex with one another, they have the same right to do so as any heterosexual couple; if two homosexual people wish to enter into a long-term, cohabitative relationship, they enjoy the same right to do so as two heterosexual people; moreover, if two homosexual people wish to be married, they have the same right as two heterosexual people to find a minister to consecrate their union and live happily ever after. The only so-called right of which homosexuals are denied is the legal recognition of that union by the state, but the shocking truth is, such a thing can never be construed as a right.

DJ (IS RIGHT) #fundie #homophobia sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

The reality is that "marriage" is a religious standard for the union of A man and A woman. That the liberals and homosexuals cannot seperate their desires from the basis of what a marriage is only amplifies the ignorance of their belief (not right) that they be 'allowed' to be married.
The slippery slope is one that they choose to ignore - that being that once you open the door anyone with whatever deprived mental capacity can walk through...but if you simply look at it from a biological standpoint there is no point in having homosexuality and that alone makes a compelling and unambigious truth that it is not meant to be..and from a religious stand it is clearly against any religion.
Simply stated: it is wrong, it is immoral, it is not natural and it is not wanted or accepted by an overwhelming majority of Americans despite the Liberal media and hollywoods attempts to make it acceptable!

Reason #fundie sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

I personally don't see how homosexuals can argue marriage is something that can be regulated by any of the states and they are therefore entitled to participate in it. Marriage is a covenant agreement between God and a man and his wife that they will be together until death. And if one subscribes to the notion of separation of church and state (as liberals purport to) then one cannot petition a state to obtain a marriage license as that would be the same thing as saying there is an official government religion and the petitioner is a participant in that religion. And that religion is one that recognizes the traditional definition of marriage, ie one derived from the Judeo-Christian. So as usual, they are trying to have it both ways.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and as with all choices, there are consequences. Instead of choosing to fit into society, they want society to pat them on the back and tell them they can do whatever they want without any negative consequences. That is delusional. If I eat nothing but ice cream I will eventually suffer the consequences of an unhealthy diet and I shouldn't expect everyone else to tell me it's okay because that is just who I am.

Jeremy N. Choate #fundie sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

There must be some other standard by which we judge human behavior as good or bad besides its convenience, usefulness, personal benefit, or its benefit to society. Theists rightly recognize this standard as the knowledge of God’s nature that He placed in us. It’s so much a part of our nature that we never consciously realize that when we make a comparison between two behaviors, we are really determining how far removed from God’s nature is each behavior. The one that is closest to God’s nature is the winner.

I have heard many atheists invoke the words of Jesus when discussing this topic. They say that the standard for good and bad lies in the Golden Rule — do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but there are innumerable instances where this rule fails as the ultimate standard of right and wrong.

If a man kills an armed intruder to protect his wife and children, we would not call this an immoral act despite the fact that he did not treat the intruder as he, himself, would like to be treated. No sane person wants to be killed by anyone. Yet, we praise this man’s actions because he placed his own life in danger to save the lives of others.

The conclusion to all of this is that it is impossible for human beings to adequately judge any behavior as good or bad without consciously or unconsciously invoking the nature of God as the standard by which to compare. All other criteria fall pathetically short. Furthermore, it would be utterly impossible for human beings to adequately define right and wrong without those concepts already existing.

Jeremy N. Choate #fundie sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

[On the subject of Objective Morality]

Let’s imagine that at the dawn of history there was no such thing as “Good”. Using some unknown criteria, human beings manufactured this perfect standard of “Good” and began using it (and its antithesis, Bad) to judge between acts, behaviors, and circumstances. If that’s true, then as much more advanced creatures, we should certainly be able to devise heretofore nonexistent standards of our own, right? I came up with one of my own. I call it “Yerg”.

Observe the following two items:
[Here he presents two photos: a bike and a Lamborghini]

Now, can anyone tell me which of these two items is the most “yerg”? Think about it — it’s not that difficult. If I asked you which item was the most blue, you wouldn’t hesitate. Obviously, the bicycle is the most blue. If I asked you which item was the fastest, naturally you would tell me that the Lamborghini is the fastest. Why can’t anyone tell me which one is the most “yerg”?

Oh, I’m sorry—you’re wanting to know what the definition of “yerg” is. To be honest with you, I don’t have any idea what “yerg” means. All I know is that it is a perfect standard by which we judge the above two items on their “yerg-ness”. Perhaps you could take a few minutes to look at those two items and divine a relationship between them that has never been conceived, before. Whatever relationship you come up with, we’ll call “yerg”.

Come up with anything yet? It’s a lot more difficult than it seems, right? That’s probably because it is impossible for us to manufacture a standard of comparison out of thin air that doesn’t already exist. I can’t say that “yerg” relates to the speed of the two objects. That standard already exists. I can’t say that “yerg” relates to the size of the two objects. That standard already exists, as well.

...

Do you see the dilemma? Human beings cannot simply weave nonexistent concepts out of thin air. We cannot even conceive of colors that we have never observed, much less manufacture a complex philosophical notion like moral goodness.

Like the man living in a dark universe who cannot possibly conceive of the idea of light or like the fish who cannot possibly conceive of something like dry land, Good and Bad would be utterly incomprehensible to us if the knowledge of them had not been placed in us by our Creator.

If you still don’t believe it, let me know how you’re making out with that whole “yerg” thing.

Jeremy N. Choate #homophobia sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

The fact is (and this will anger the tender-hearted and tender-minded among you), homosexuality is a natural aberration. It is a deviation from healthy, natural sexual attraction just as much as pedophilia and zoophilia. In decades past, it was labeled as a psychological pathology and was only declassified as such under pressure from the forces of political correctness.

This does not give us justification for persecuting homosexuals or judging them as bad people, as the vast majority of them (except Dan Savage) are most assuredly wonderful human beings. However, just because we have been able to successfully separate those who practice homosexuality from their behavior and love them in spite of it doesn’t give us license to sweep the truth about the behavior under the rug.

Jeremy N. Choate #fundie sufficient-reason.tumblr.com

How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents. If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you. If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.

The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish. You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom.
...
Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty — it’s an axiomatic truth.

What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi. Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.

I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom. What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.
...
In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become — the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.