This is Will Graham's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Will Graham's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Will Graham
Recent Activity
A fascintating article, Bill, and, as some may know, a subject I am very interested in. But before we place too much blame on religion, lets remember that all the key scientists in the development of "the bomb" were atheists. And it was the atheist Robert Oppenheimer who famously declared "The scientists have blood on their hands." But I have not found an atheist who will admit it; they seem to think that no matter WHAT happens, atheism had nothing to do with it; they have insultated themselves from all responsibility and set themselves up in a non falsifiable position. (And for those who understand the Scientific Method, non falsifiability is not a compliment.) In other words; they can do and say ANYTHING but have no ethical responsibility; backed up by the concepts that THERE IS NO TRUTH (or, as their allies say, we must keep searching...always...for it and we could be wrong about ANYTING and EVERYTHING) and that MORALS ARE RELATIVE. The last two points, when combined with Scientific Advances, are setting us up for what the Bible calls "Armageddon".
1 reply
A somewhat extraneous question, but I notice the KC"FREE"THINKERS and their allies make about 15 posts a day here. (And, nothing personal, but when someone posts Four or More several paragraphs long posts in a row in the space of a few minutes (obviously preset) I just scroll over them...I am not ignoring them, I just don't have time for that.) Just wondering why they don't have any place for comments on their own KCFreethinkers.org site? We would love to make our presence known there!
1 reply
AS to the Constitution, you claim that most of these problems could be avoided if everyone would follow the "case law". But the "case law" is often contradictory. For example, many of the atheists here seem to think the Constitution holds that there can no be public religious expresson in schools, which is not the case. Students can have religious organizations if set up by the students and if the schools allow other organizations to be set up by students. And the Supreme Court has done some terrible things. In Dred Scott is held that a black man was only three fifths of a man. In Buck v Bell it held that forced sterilization could be allowed; there have been many decisions allowing what were in effect support for EUGENICS...the Atheist Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was the architect of Buck v Bell. What if the Court were to decide that parents could not teach their own religious beliefs to children? There are atheists like Dawkins who support exactly that. http://www.aclj.org/
1 reply
Bill, earth may not be the "center" of the universe, but it is the only planet in this system to harbor life...the recent discovery of water on the moon, hailed by some posters as equaling the discovery of life, does not mean the moon is "alive". (Water is simply a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, nothing living about it.) That said, the Bible does not say there is no intelligent life elsewhere; in fact, it says the opposite and warns us that some of those intelligences are hostile to God AND the human race.
1 reply
I am amused, by the way, that the atheists and their allies are so excited about the "GOD GENE". If this were in fact a reality, then it would just be another Nail In the Coffin of their idea of "FREE WILL".
1 reply
Bill, you seem concerned about "anti-Islam trash talk". How about the anti Christian trash talk, actually libel, that one poster engaged in yesterday by saying that believers were brainwasing their children? (You obviously were restrictly replies to that yesterday; it remains to be seen what will happen today.) That form of trash talk actually fits in well with the New Atheist agenda of calling the teaching of religion to children child abuse; a frequent declaration of Richard Dawkins (another favorite of the local anti Christians) and Daniel Dennet. Its true that such favorites as Daniel Dennet want to teach about different religions to children, but they have a real problem with parents teacing their OWN religious views to children. And, ironicially, although they claim to favor SEPARATION of Church and state, this is an area where they actually want the STATE to get involved. Why would atheists such as Dawkins and Dennet want children taught about religion? So that children will, early on, be given the idea that since their are different religions, and they often disagree, then they must all be wrong since they can't all be right...and that is exactly what KCF (or Iggy or whoever uses that sign in) was claiming yesterday. (As a logical exercise, KCF's view is of course a Non Sequitur and a form of Circular Argument, but that is glossed over.) The idea that they simply want to "educate" the children is disingenous and they, and their allies, know it.
1 reply
Bill, how is it that when Cole Morgan says believers are brainwashing their children (his 9:48 am post), which would be a form of child abuse, and thus commits the worst form of libel, you have no problem with it? But if aomeone tries to reply to them, I am told you don't post the replies. Seriously, what is your goal here Mr. Tammeus?
1 reply
Shovel Ready Health Care! http://mrmannn.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-lied-americans-died-part-3.html
1 reply
Hilarious poster for all the collaborators and those who think KTA of the atheists does any good! http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RA6QsNeG9dE/Svbzl9TGu9I/AAAAAAAAAEY/XdiOnTiZMcA/s1600-h/liberal_moron.jpg
1 reply
Hilarious! Jokes are an excellent form of back handed attack. While you tell jokes, Let the United States R.I.P. http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com/2009/11/united-states-1776-2009-rip-looting.html
1 reply
For the atheist Moral Relativists who tell us there is No Truth, and their collaborators who tell us they could be wrong about EVERYTHING and anything (in effect saying the same thing), the Militant Atheist PZ Myers offers a DARWINIAN solution! http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/pz-myers-responds-in-self-interested.html
1 reply
Cole Morgan says they often invite believers to their studies, but they rarely show. And when they do? Like James did? You tell stories about him and make stuff up. So what do expect? People see what you say about beleivers on this blog, they have read hundreds of posts by Iggy, and it is plain that you guys are not that informed about history, philosphy, science, or even religion for that matter. So they don't show. Why act suprised?
1 reply
Just Thinking, the 60 year old you mention needs to talk to a lawyer right away! I know a couple who can get things moving.
1 reply
Very informative article, Bill. It certainly eliminates the claims made here that young people aren't interested in religion.
1 reply
Bill, for all the talk of religion and terrorism, it is not religion that has filled the world with weapons that could destroy civilization in half a day. What about the role of scientific theories in producing terrorists? Some horrendous events have taken place in Britain... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6905259.ece
1 reply
Excellent points on funerals, Bill. This relates strongly to Human Dignity, and it is revealing that the atheist posters here have, more than once, dissed the idea of funerals. Dan Barker, leader of the FFRF...and who is much revered by local atheist groups and has been to Kansas City severaal times...has some thoughts on Human Dignity. http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/dan-barkers-views-on-human-dignity.html
1 reply
Bill, that is an excellent refutation of the slanderous charge of Cannibalism, which, as you point out (and I had forgotten) is an ancient charge that was leveled against the first century Christians. What I expect, though, is that the posters who make such comments will do as they always do...simply ignore your refutation and make other charges just to get a rise out of people and derail any developoing discusssions. And repeatedly they ignore challenges to: 1. Demonstrate how "thought" (simply a biochemcial reaction in their REDUCTIONIST view) is "free" if it follows the laws of chemisty and physics in reponse to the environment. 2. Give an example of ANYTHING that could confirm...even in PRINCIPLE...the existence of God; they won't because as Jesus said, "Even if one were to rise from the dead, they would not believe". 3. Give an example of ANYTHING that would confirm...even in principle...the value of prayer; they won't because if you grant their view that we live in an "undirected universe" (as Greg Swartz claimed), and which HAS NOT been demonstrated, then they will ALWAYS come back with an "alternative explanation..."spontaneous" remission, space aliens, mass delusion, ANYTHING to avoid the TRUTH (which they will also say does not exist.) As to the comment late yesterday that the "free"thought groups are now claiming that they have grown from an average of 10 people a meeting to something like 25 per meeting...in only a YEAR! Actually, that is not an impressive rate of growth. In a YEAR Bible Studies involving defending Christianity have increase by over ten times from 40 people to over 400 people at First United. Younger peoople are still very interested in Christianity, and the canard that they aren't is exactly that...false.
1 reply
Bill, regarding the services at Fort Hood, I notice that President Obama said the crimes committed would be met with justice in this world, "and the next"...does not sound to me like he is siding with atheism. As to the license plates, though; well, don't believers pay taxes too? "No taxation without representation was one of the rallying cries of the American Revolution." And JUST THINKING, that 5:59 pm post yesterday is bizarre; I would say it borders on threatening. I would strongly advise against any private meetings you might have been considering.
1 reply
You know, the ironic thing in all of this, is that the website Igor Dybal has maintained by outsourced Indians, there is NO PLACE ON THE SITE FOR COMMENTS. I think he is afraid.
1 reply
Now, if you have any guts, you will meet the challenge Just Thinking set out. And I notice that in her very first post, early this morning, SUSAN said that even if absolute proof of the non existence of God were proved, she would still believe in love, etc. Why, Susan? What is this "love" you speak of to the athiest? Their certainly is no soul, just biochemical reactions and hormones gurgling out in various manifestations. And what is this "proof" you speak of? To to that they would have to demonstrate, just for started, that existence and live itself are the product of undirected forces. Greg Swartz bragged about that, but quickly ran away when he realized he could not meet the challenge of demonstration. How about you, Panzie?
1 reply
Notice how, when KCF is faced with challenges he knows he can't meet, by JUST THINKING and others, that he switches to attack mode, mode, jumping up and down, stamping his feet and yelling "Look! Look at that guy! Don't look at me!) You really are frightened, aren't you, sport? Just like JUST THINKING said. But seriously, Igor Dybal, er, KCF, I like your idea about a "task force"...in this case, to connect all the Atheist Trolls online (Igor, Hannibal Lector, Hawkeye for the City Guy, Alexander the Metal Worker, "Richard Dawkins, Ph.D." Panzie, etc.) and many other infestations of the atheist trolling behavior and post it online for everyone to make their own opinion, at personal blogs, KCStar, Atheism Is Dead, and OF COURSE Kansas Citizens for Science since Jack is such an intellectually honest guy. Seriously, Iggy, I wonder how many names you have used? Or if Iggy is even your name at all. God only knows! Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!! One thing is sure, none of us have ever threatened anyone or demanded that they SHUT UP and DIE. Thats your game.
1 reply
JUST THINKING, regarding your challenge to GREG, KCF, etc.; PREDICTION: They won't answer it without attacks and diversionary tactics. They even attended a meeting Friday Night, sponsored by the KCFS and the AU where a speaker lectured on tactics of pigeonholing, name calling, and attack for maximum effectiveness. It was right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook: Rules for Radicals. (Alinsky provided a model of Obama's tactics, and Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on him. Go figure.) We all found it very informative.
1 reply
On the NEW ATHEISTS and FUNDAMENTALISTS, by Frank Schaeffer: http://www.alternet.org/belief/143674/are_the_%22new_atheists%22_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists
1 reply
What is amusing to me is that atheists keep telling us that this is NOT a Christian nation (like the FFRF does in its attempt to eliminate Chaplains, the free exercise clause of the Constitution be damned), but when "atomic bombs" are mentioned in a prrevious post (and the bombs were built by atheitic scientists) this suddenly is "A Christian Nation". Double standards are fun to play with, aren't they? HAhahahahaha!!!!
1 reply
"we should not be afraid of satire and mockery as weapons against religious power." Weapons? An odd choice of words. http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/barnhill/ES_375/alinsky_rules_power_tactics.html see rule number 5; this is straight from the radical playbook.
1 reply