Open Mic
Francois Tremblay Permalink
9 comments
It's an open mic post. Post anything you want in the comments section !
Goosing the Antithesis
We promote rational individualism, and are opposed to those who assert incoherent supernatural claims.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
It's an open mic post. Post anything you want in the comments section !
Contributors
Links
(and our blogs)- ExChristian.Net
- StrongAtheism.Net
- Graveyard of the Gods Board
- Graveyard of the Gods Ministry
- The Radical Libertarian
- Check Your Premises
Reading the Antithesis
Check out these blogs
- Incinerating Presuppositionalism
- Kill The Afterlife
- Hellbound Alleee
- Debunking Christianity
- Black Sun Journal
- The Secular Outpost
- Richard Carrier Blogs
- The Dilettante Exegete
- 10,000 Reasons to Doubt the Fish
- Cyberspace Rendezvous
- Memoirs of an ex-Christian
- Kingdom of Heathen
- UberKuh
- The Pagan Prattle
- Skeptico
- Meet An Atheist
- Deep Thoughts
- Schade-Colored Glasses
Selected past posts
Morality FAQ
The War of Morality
Values and Materialism
Euthyphro's Dilemma
The Role of Morality in Religion
The Christian Virtues
Christian Celebrations of Death
Christians Cannot Account For Morality
Moral Development and Christianity
Regressive Christian Morality
Moral Projection in Christianity: Part 1 and Part 2
The Immorality of Belief: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3
Moral Responsibility: Part 1 and Part 2
Relativism: Part 1 and Part 2
The Morality Disconnect: Part 1 and Part 2
Religious Rejection of a Moral Being
The Parasitic Nature of Evil
The Virtue of Honesty
The Virtue of Justice
The Virtue of Non-Sacrifice
The Virtue of Non-Coercion
The Moral Razor
The Problem of Induction
The Asymmetry of Immaterialism
Refuting God's Nature
If Knowledge Then No God
The Three Types of Order
Miracles and Materialism
Religious Language
Proving a Negative
Meaning and Belief
The Block Universe Explained
Kalvinism's Kausal Konfusion
The First Intention-Giver Argument
The "More To Life" Argument
What is Proof? Part 1 and Part 2
Argumentum ad Bananum
Argumentum ad Ridiculum
Comfort Concedes
Christian Moral Hypocrisy
A Chimpanzee's Grandson
Kicking Ass For Jesus
God is a Fag
The Sound of One Man Talking
Faith and Reason: Part 1
Faith and Reason: Part 2
Faith and Reason: Part 3
The God That Wasn'€™t at Church
Why is Mary Crying?
Christians Gotta Have Heart
The Christian's Rapist Wit
Sin is Just Bad Genes?
Are Christian Women Crazy?
The Christian Marriage Problem
Lee Strobel
Jay Richards
Stephen Meyer
Michael Behe
Questions and Answers
Final Thoughts
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
Post a Comment
9 Comments:
I have a personal hypothesis about the psychology of Reformed Christianity. I don't know what the actual numbers are, but I wonder if converts make up a significantly larger percentage of Reformed churches compared to other Christian denominations. In other words, my guess is that Christians who are NOT Reformed are more likely to accept the religion of their parents, and Reformed Christians are more likely to have become so by leaving a different denomination or religion.
The other side of this hypothesis is that children of Reformed Christians are less likely to remain Reformed than the children of Christians from other denominations. My own personal interest in this hypothesis should be obvious.
I only have personal observations to go on, but I'm finding it hard to think of many Reformed Christians that weren't converted from another denomination or religion, or children of Reformed Chrisitans (such as myself) who have remained in Reformed Christianity.
Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Did you know there is a campaign to get the Day of Reason installed in Canada? It's true! http://day-of-reason.blogspot.com/
Why didn't you mention this on Hellboundalleee or your Goose the Antithesis post on the Day of Reason? Canada needs a Day of Reason just as much as the USA!
Gah. I appreciate the sentiment, but it seems more depressing to assign reason to a single day.
My feelings exactly, Zach. It squeems me (I made the word up) to assign a day where everyone is supposed to do or think certain things. Besides: we don't recognize the difference between, "Canada" and "the US," nor do I like the term "national." It doesn't make much sense for us to endorse a "national" day of anything.
Not that it's a terrible thing. It's clearly a response to the "national day of prayer." Since I'm not in a society goverened by George W, there's no "national" day of prayer in it to respond to.
Ian McKellan, actor in the Da Vinci Code, had a brilliant observation on a morning talk show: If the film requires a "this is fiction" disclaimer, so should The Bible. Unabashed atheism on American TV - how refreshing!
McKellan is always good on Bill Maher's HBO show, as well. Quite articulate.
"I read in the newspapers they are going to have 30 minutes of intellectual stuff on television every Monday from 7:30 to 8.... to educate America. They couldn’t educate America if they started at 6:30." - Groucho Marx, Boston Globe Jan 22, 1960
A Day of Reason? And then what? We can all go back to being idiots in a smug, self-satisfied way?
What an awesome line by McKellan. What is it about the way British people talk about things that makes them seem so clever? I couldn't tell Richard Dawkins' writing style from anyone else's, but when I listen to him speak, I'm mesmerized. Is it just an American thing?
1) I love nachos.
2) at lunch today I argued about anarchy with a friend. He said that he didnt think an anarchy is a good idea because he thinks it leaves room for a company to obtain too much power and make a monopoly and by tyrannical. So he thinks we need a government.
I then pointed out to him that his argument was self-defeating becuase he is proposing a tyrannical, monopolistic entity as the solution to his fear of the formation of a tyrannical, monopolistic entity.
LOL what a day.
1) Here in the U.S., Democrats and Republicans argue a lot over what the Founding Fathers really wanted out of the Constitution. The comment above reminds me of an online discussion I was having with a Libertarian on the matter of who has the better ideas, whatever the founding fathers may have wanted. He said that it makes no difference whether you choose a Republican or Democrat. Democrats want a big government and often openly say so. Republicans claim they want a small government, but paradoxically create beauraucracies to keep the government from growing too big.
I noted that with the struggle back and forth between the two parties, the one thing I really noticed about the Constitution is how difficult it makes it to get anything of substance done in the government. I said something like, "Maybe the Founding Fathers really wanted to create a system that was intentionally too messed up to allow the government work at all?" And in a way, that's libertarianism, isn't it?
2) Poo.
<< Home