Category Archives: Atheism

In the religious war over vaccines and masking, Covid non-believers have chosen to immunise themselves from reality, not the virus.

On August 4 this year, long-time American conservative radio talk show host Dick Farrel died from Covid-19 after previously insisting to his audience that the pandemic was a SCAM DEMIC, that the vaccine is Bogus Bull [Shit], and suggesting that the delta variant is an elaborate ruse orchestrated to keep Americans fearing for their lives.

Upon contracting the virus, Farrel abruptly recanted his previously held convictions, reportedly telling a close friend to get vaccinated because Covid-19 is no joke and adding that I wish I had gotten [vaccinated]! Farrel had fallen into a Covid foxhole and died there, no longer a Covid atheist but dead, nevertheless.

The phrase, There are no atheists in foxholes is pithy, pointed, poignant and pertinent for todays religious wars over Covid and its vaccines and masks. The intention of the aphorism is to make it plain that given the existential dread of finding yourself in a First World War foxhole, few, if any, would hold on to a worldview with no hope of miracle, redemption, or life after death. It is a statement that principles are often no match for a confounding reality.

This is no more evident than in the current skirmishing over vaccines and masking. I say skirmishing a minor combat with much noise and usually no casualties because if the Covid war gets real infection, hospitalisation, gasping to breathe and hoping to survive with the realisation that you, like the shell-shocked of World War One, may never be the same again - it seems that there are few who will be able to maintain their skeptical stance.

Now, if the Covid atheists those who seriously doubt the reality of the situation were mere bystanders, their presence might be nothing more than a social curiosity. Cruelly and paradoxically, those who most strenuously deny the reality of Covid and the measures we have to mitigate it are now the most likely to perpetuate its existence.

The atheists are getting sick, spreading the virus to others, and serving as the petri dish for new variants. That they are also dying from the disease they trivialised begets a mirthless schadenfreude. Ironically, the pandemic will go on longer because of the resistance of the Covid deniers.

When Covid does become real, there is instantly a trust in the care and the knowledge of the medical community, so recently vilified as untrustworthy and misguided. If it wasnt so pathetic it might also be considered ironic.

The health care that they expect, and are entitled to, is, in my country, Canada, funded by all (a majority of whom are not Covid atheists) and whatever resources go to treating Covid are unable to be utilised for other health concerns. When the hospitals are overrun with Covid cases in the unvaccinated and other citizens with serious health concerns are denied access to treatment, there is no great justice to be found.

It is far too easy to be a Covid non-believer and angry about the impositions it has led to. Most of us have only a distant connection to the actual illness but we all have a vivid, personal lived experience of Covid restrictions.

Covid-19 is a relatively mild plague. Case fatality rates are about 2 percent and many (perhaps 75 percent) who get (and spread) the infection are never counted as cases. Although 10 percent of documented infections result in significant consequences, 90 percent of documented cases will escape with nothing of lasting significance.

These numbers certainly can support a laissez-faire attitude towards the virus, however, with another, broader, perspective, it means that at least 20 million worldwide will die before the pandemic ends.

To put this in perspective, the scourge of cancer, fought relentlessly and with few atheists, kills about 10 million people worldwide every year. Had Covid-19 been as lethal as the 1918 pandemic (about 5 percent case-fatality rate), annual deaths would easily exceed those from cancer and almost everyone would either be in the Covid foxhole or have a close friend or family member in one. This would certainly mean fewer Covid atheists and a clearer path to ending the pandemic.

Now, some of the Covid non-believers are simply healthy skeptics, perhaps better termed agnostics with unanswered questions. Others are just lazy-minded, sipping conveniently and unreflectively from the tainted offerings of social media.

Many, however, are principled in their atheism. They will vigorously deny the legitimacy of scientific inquiry and defend their freedom to gather unvaccinated, unmasked, and un-distanced for whatever purpose they desire.

Not spoken aloud but always present in the subtext is the unshakeable belief that my rights to liberty Trump (pun intended) your rights to safety. I suspect that all varieties of Covid atheists seek immunity from the realities of the pandemic in their own form of herd mentality.

For the agnostics, I recommend a respectful dialogue with other viewpoints, with the expectation of more mutual understanding. For the lazy-minded, I recommend a healthier diet of information along with some vigorous exercise of the mind. For the true atheists, there is little to say other than you are entitled to your beliefs although not entitled to inflict the consequences of those beliefs on the rest of us.

One might think that the mass of Covid disbelievers would be a serious challenge to successfully quelling the pandemic. Many ultimately victorious campaigns started as principled guerilla movements against the established order. Sticking to your principles, even to death or personal injury, is an admirable trait, even if it seems misguided at times.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Christian pastor, was hanged for his refusal to bow to Nazism. A patient of mine, a young Jehovahs Witness woman, chose death from loss of blood after giving birth by refusing a transfusion. Kamikaze pilots fought their enemies with a fierce, fatal determination.

Among Covid atheists however, I suspect there are very few willing to go to the proverbial wall where the firing squad may be aiming. Despite all the noisy (and noisome) protesting, just being prevented from going to their favourite bar or taking a Caribbean vacation is sufficient for many anti-vaxxers to jettison their supposedly deeply ingrained principles.

For all three varieties of Covid disbelievers (in countries with easy access to vaccines), governments should do their duty to protect all their citizens by reasonably limiting individual freedoms - think stop lights, wearing clothes in public, etc. - and require proof of adequate vaccination and compliance with masking and distancing measures to enter ALL public spaces bars, restaurants, sporting events and hair salons, yes, but also banks, grocery stores, schools, and public transportation, with no medical exemptions, real or fabricated. There is no medical exemption for getting a driving licence, after all.

This would lead to two favourable outcomes:

First, most of the Covid atheists would find a useful clarity that many things matter to them more than their avowed principles and then elect to be vaccinated. Second, those who truly stick to their guns and remain unvaccinated will retain their freedom to inhabit their private spheres with their principles intact but without injuring others.

In either case, there will be far fewer Covid foxholes for any of us to find ourselves in and that is an outcome desired by all.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT World.

We welcome all pitches and submissions to TRT World Opinion please send them via email, to opinion.editorial@trtworld.com

View original post here:
There are no Covid atheists in foxholes - TRT World

Darrin Barr is the former principal of Bloomfield Collegiate in Belfast. He is now with the faith-based organisation Equipping for Life

. Can you tell me about your background?

A. I am 56 and was born in Ballymena. My father was a fireman and my mother was a housewife. I have two sisters and one brother. I have been married to Judy for 34 years and we have four children, three girls and a boy. Our second daughter, Sarah, died of cancer at the age of 13. My secondary education was at Ballymena Academy, then a BSc in chemistry at Queens University Belfast from 1984 to 1987, followed by a PhD in organic chemistry at Queens from 1987 to 1990. This was followed by a PGCE from 1992 to 1993.

Q. What is your employment history?

A. In the early 90s, I worked as a production manager in pharmaceuticals. Then I was a chemistry teacher at Victoria College, Belfast, moving on to become deputy head and acting principal and, for the last nine years of my teaching career, I was principal of Bloomfield Collegiate. I have just finished a two-year contract with AQE and I am now with Equipping for Life, a faith-based organisation, working in disadvantaged areas and equipping people for a better future.

Q. How and when did you come to faith?

A. I was a very enthusiast preacher of atheism at school and even proposed the debating motion, This house believes that God does not exist. At university, my head was turned by a girl who gave me a copy of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. I decided that, to impress her, I would condescend to read the book. However, I was overwhelmed by the person of Jesus. As Lewis says, Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman, or something worse. I accepted that He was the former and I did a 180-degree turn. That was in August 1985 and I have been married to the girl for 34 years and following the Man for 35 years.

Q. Have you ever had a crisis or a gnawing doubt about your faith?

A. Many times, when I wandered away from God. My greatest crisis of faith happened when my daughter, Sarah, was diagnosed with a brain tumour and subsequently died. It is impossible to articulate the feelings of frustration and pain that parents go through when they have a seriously ill child. I threw myself on Gods mercy and prayed fervently for Sarahs healing and mobilised many Christians locally and nationally to pray. After three years of prayer, Sarah died on St Valentines Day 2007. Looking back, I can see that God really was with me through the pain, but there were times when I struggled with the concept that God is good.

Q. Have you ever been angry with God?

A. When Sarah died, even after so much faithful prayer, I was angry at Him. I was angry at the Church. How could God be described as a good God? I have heard Christians say that God provides car-parking spaces to those who ask and yet He would not grant healing to my daughter. In desperation, I started to read books written by angry or suffering Christians (for example, Where is God When it Hurts by Philip Yancey, A Grief Observed by CS Lewis) and discovered that, if we ever think we understand God, then we have no understanding of Him at all. I started to see that God is not described as good because of what He does for us, rather He is good because of who He is. As Jesus says: In this world, you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.

Q. Are you afraid to die, or can you look beyond death?

A. I do not like pain, so I hope for a relatively good death, but I will have to take what comes. I am not afraid of hellfire for me, but for the ones I love and for all the people who have not experienced and accepted Gods grace through Jesuss death and resurrection.

This might sound odd, but I did not really believe in Heaven until I was forced to contemplate where my daughter was. I believe completely in a New Heaven and a New Earth and that those who trust in Jesus will rise after death to experience a form of life that is unimaginable at the moment. I am so glad that there will be a New Earth, because we are destroying this one.

Q. Why are so many turning their backs on organised religion?

A. The Church has thrived when it has not been at the centre of societies.

When it is marginalised, or suffering persecution, the Church is very often energised, spirit-dependent and effective. Maybe the move away from the centre is Gods plan.

Q. Has religion helped, or hindered, Northern Ireland?

A. Both. There is so much that is good about our values, culture, legal system and social action, which is a direct result of the Churches over the last 1,500 years. The division that we see and the sectarian attitudes which have blighted our country for centuries illustrate the human condition in all its rawness. The Church is full of sinners saved by His grace.

Q. What is your favourite film, book and music?

A. Film any Basil Rathbone version of Sherlock Holmes. Book Mere Christianity by CS Lewis and A Time to Kill by John Grisham. Music The Lark Ascending by Ralph Vaughan Williams. It is heavenly.

Q. Where do you feel closest to God?

A. I love trees, particularly the oak, and when I stare (my wife says open-mouthed) at an oak, I thank God for His love for me.

Q. What inscription would you like on your gravestone?

A. It has already been written, as it is the same grave that my daughter is buried in. My wife and I decided that the phrase that encapsulated Sarahs short life was In Christ alone my hope is found. That will do for me as well.

Q. Finally, have you any major regrets?

A. The only regrets I have are from the times when I have hurt people.

Read more from the original source:
Equipping for Life's Darrin Barr: 'My daughter Sarah was diagnosed with a brain tumour and sadly died... looking back, God was with me through the...

Is there a god?

The discussions in these pages regarding God, religion and atheism bring to mind the following story.

All the wars had been fought and peace finally arrived around the world. All the nations cooperated in building a giant super-computer that would control the weather, the economies, the health systems and all other matters for the entire world.

Came the great day of the inauguration of this fantastic computer and the honour of switching it on fell to the president of the World Federation. He switched it on and asked the first question of this giant machine.

Of course, he asked the question that has troubled mankind since the beginning of time. He asked Is there a god?

The answer came instantly: Now there is!

Terry Bate Gajnsielem

While I emphatically agree with Isabel Stabiles contention (September 24) that there always has to be a man however irresponsible, however much he may lurk in the shadows involved in a pregnancy, I equally emphatically disagree with her conclusion that Maltas anti-abortion laws were laid down as a means of controlling women.

Maltas anti-abortion laws remain in place for one reason alone: to preserve the life of the unborn child and to afford it the dignity it deserves as a complete and living member of the human race.

Claiming that the law was enacted as a means of controlling women is little more than ideological flippancy.

On the other hand, however, it would make great sense were the biological

father to be held at least as responsible for the decision as the mother.

I can see a number of practical difficulties arising along the way but, in principle at least, it would be an overdue, ground-breaking and eminently logical extension to the law as it now stands.

Ivan Padovani San Pawl tat-Tara, Naxxar

When former Yugoslavia was breaking up into the modern republics, warring, enemy soldiers used to break into Catholic convents, rape the nuns and leave with the wish that they bear the child of their enemy.

Indeed, dozens of nuns became pregnant. They wrote to the pope, then St John Paul II, asking: We do not want these babies. What shall we do?

The popes answer was: Abortion is not an option. He arranged for them to continue their pregnancy in convents in Germany, with proper material, psychological and spiritual help.

When the babies were born, the nuns were given the option to bring up the child themselves and leave the convent or offer the child for adoption and return to the convent.

Abortion is a crime. The direct killing of a child is always wrong, no excuse whatsoever. The highest civil authorities in Europe declare that a foetus is a human being.

Anybody who believes in God will accept the commandment: Thou shall not kill. Indeed, nobody would like to be murdered.

The crux of the debate is maturity.

A mature persons attitude to law is that it is his guideline; a childs attitude to law is obedience and subjection.

A girl grows up physically and psychologically and, in her playing with dolls, subconsciously says: I want to be a mother. With abortion she destroys her dream with her own hands, bringing about a great mental breakdown.

Ive been hearing confessions for over half a century, in Malta and, even more, abroad. I am speaking about individuals, women. And also men. They remain haunted for the rest of their lives.

God forgives but nature does not forgive. Jesus forgives, always, but the psyche never.

Dont ask a person who lately had an abortion, not even a few years ago. Abortion is such a heinous crime that a person remains in denial for about nine years.

A woman who wants an abortion feels compelled by various reasons: she is not free. She must be judged with great leniency.

Fr Alfred Vella Clark Msida

Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.

Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.

Link:
Letters to the editor - October 2, 2021 - Times of Malta

Some change their mind

I refer to John Guillaumiers letter Atheist celebrities (September 17).

For some years, I have given a course on contemporary atheism. So I was quite familiar with the writings of Jean Paul Sartre, a French existentialist, and those of Anthony Flew, a British humanist. Both were staunch, militant atheists. For this reason, I was really surprised when, later on, I read about a U-turn concerning their view on belief in Gods existence.

In March 1980, about a month before his death, Sartre was reported to have confessed to his friend, Pierre Victor: I do not feel that I am a product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God. Some years before, he had already told his lover, the renowned feminist Simone de Beauvoir, that, at times, he saw himself as a being that could only come from a Creator.

Another staunch and outspoken atheist was the British philosopher Flew. He dismayed his atheist friends when, in 2004, he announced that God probably did exist. Later on, he wrote the book entitled There is a God: How the Worlds most Notorious Atheist changed his Mind. In this book, he gives four reasons why he now believed in the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent and omniscient Being.

I wonder if, one day, there will be a similar turnaround in the life of Guillaumier.

I will pray for him.

Mgr George Frendo OP Archbishop of Tirana

Former president Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca (September 24) reminds us that cancer prevalence is increasing and urges support to cancer research organisations. All very laudable.

However, important research about what probably is a major cancer promoter, followed by the largest epidemiological cancer research project ever conducted, were performed in the 1970s and 1980s and those unaware of what was discovered in the past might waste a lot of research funds rediscovering the wheel.

Indian and US researchers, working on laboratory mice and rats, first produced evidence that primary promoter of cancer in these animals was not toxins or viruses but the amount of animal protein they were fed. The more animal protein was added to their feed, the higher the risk of cancer (no space here for more detail). The animal protein used was cows milk.

The same US researchers then teamed up with a Chinese university and found that in the vegetarian regions of China, all types of cancer were very rare, almost unknown, while in the regions that had adopted Western diets, like Shanghai, cancer and heart disease prevalence was similar to that in leading Western counties.

All this information was later published by the lead researcher, Colin Campbell, in a book entitled The China Study, aimed at the public and which might still be available online.

More recently, January 2020 to be precise, two studies on breast cancer, obesity and diet, one from the US and another from the UK, presented at an international breast cancer meeting in Birmingham, both found that weight reduction and increased consumption of vegetables and fruits reduced the risk of breast cancer recurrence after therapy.

Unfortunately, in most of the richer countries, overconsumption of all meats and dairy produce is associated with wealth and good living. Overconsumption of foods made from white flour, rice, potato and sugars further contributes to increasing proportions of overweight and obese adults and children, many of whom are in denial of reality and likely to take offence if their disease state is pointed out.

Finally, the UK NHS is conducting a huge nationwide research project to test whether or not a US molecular genetic blood test can accurately detect the earliest establishment of specific cancers in various organs, much before such tumours can be detected by our present scanning or endoscopy methods.

Albert Cilia-Vincenti Attard

Isabel Stabile is correct in lambasting irresponsible men who impregnate women and start new human lives in them. But, by what logic can this irresponsibility be used to terminate these innocent, vulnerable human lives?

Carmel Sciberras Naxxar

Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.

Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.

Excerpt from:
Letters to the editor - September 28, 2021 - Times of Malta

At this point in the Does God exist? debate between theist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty (September 17, 2021), readers may recall that the debate opened with Egnor explaining why, as a former atheist, he became a theist. Then Dillahunty explained why, as a former theist, he became an atheist. Michael Egnor then made his opening argument, offering ten proofs for the existence of God. Matt Dillahunty responded in his own opening argument that the propositions were all unfalsifiable. When, in Section 4, it was Egnors turn to rebut Dillahunty, Dillahunty was not easily able to recall Aquinass First Way (the first logical argument for the existence of God).

No matter, they agreed to keep talking. The conversation continues to be somewhat rambunctious, thus has been condensed for print:

A partial transcript (beginning at 45:00 min) and notes follow:

Michael Egnor: Okay. So lets start with the first argument, Aquinass First Way, okay? Aquinas and this actually comes from Aristotle observed that change happens in nature. Which wed all agree, change happens.

Michael Egnor: The Aristotelian understanding of change is that there is a state called potency, things can have the possibility of changing. And then theres a state of actuality

Matt Dillahunty: That is about something coming into its potential of being. But go ahead. [00:45:30]

Michael Egnor: So there are possibilities and there are actualities, and they dont cross over. Something thats possible by definition is not yet actual, and something that is actual is no longer possible, its actual. Causal chains in nature involve sequences of possible states of being that become actual states of being. and theres a chain that goes down, and thats how causes happen. [00:46:00]

Matt Dillahunty: I thought we were starting with the first one, and now youve switched into causation, which is the second.

Michael Egnor: Thats a very good point, because they do overlap. That is, that the First Way focuses on change, on

Matt Dillahunty: One could argue, as many have, that at least the first three of Thomas Aquinass [Five] Ways are all kind of summarized in cosmological arguments in general. [00:46:30]

Michael Egnor: Right, exactly. And all the cosmological arguments depend on the impossibility of infinite regress in an instrumental series of causes in nature. And instrumental causes are a series of causes where the causes have to continuously exist for the whole process to happen. Again, the example that Aristotle used was pushing a rock with a stick. And the stick is the instrumental series of causes, that is, its this object that goes from your hand to the rock. [00:47:00]

Note: Infinite regress means an infinite series of causes backward in time. Philosophers have not typically accepted such an explanation of our universe because the very fact that we exist shows that some causes (those which would result in our not existing) have not in fact happened. Thus, backward in time, some limits exist.

Michael Egnor: His argument was that no matter how long you make the stick, no matter how far back you make an infinite regress, you need a hand, you need something that is purely actual to be the prime mover to get the process starting. Everything cant just be possible. There has to be something that is purely actual to start the process, and that is what all men call God. [00:47:30]

Matt Dillahunty: Except that thats not what all men call God. I know that Aristotle says that, I know thats part of that. Clearly

Michael Egnor: Aristotle didnt say that. Aquinas did.

Matt Dillahunty: Sorry. My bad. Thank you for the correction. This notion that this is what everybody calls God doesnt mean that that is in fact God, and it doesnt mean that this understanding, the summary that were doing. Carl Sagan famously, in his notes, [00:48:00] when viewing a claim about an infinite regress, and this assertion that we cant have an infinite regress, because if we did, we would never be able to stop asking

But this notion that you must have an infinite causal chain, and there must be a first cause is basically an argument from analogy. We are going to look at the universe and how things operate, and heres the causal chain, or here is the action chain, or the mover chain. And when we look at that, we summarize it in a way that we understand it. But that doesnt mean that the claims that we make about it are necessarily the case. [00:48:30]

And so causality is necessarily something that requires time, as does existence. It doesnt mean anything for anything to exist for no time, and it doesnt mean for something, to say that theres causality absent time, because this is one thing following another. Its necessarily temporal. And so even under a model like Aquinass, or under other models where they suggest that there is a God that exists outside of space and time, there is no explanation for how and why, what that even means, or how it can be a meaningful thing. [00:49:30]

Matt Dillahunty: Its like asking what happened before the Big Bang. That may be a nonsensical question if, based on the models that we have, time begins with the Big Bang. And so the best that this can do is say, Given this understanding of this model, it seems that there would need to be some sort of first cause, but it doesnt tell us anything about that first cause. And to presume that it must be a thinking agent that is somehow absent time has a number of problems with it, not the least of which is nobodys bothered to demonstrate that that is in fact what is here, rather than [00:50:00]

One of the questions that we were going to get to at some point is What caused the laws of nature? And you said, specifically, the mind that created them. I dont understand how someone could come to the conclusion that it mustve been created by a mind. Because the laws of nature are descriptive. Yes, they existed, the truth of them existed before there were thinking human beings within the universe and they existed before there were any thinking beings, as far as we can tell. But the physical laws are things We describe them, but thats us putting our language on something that is. Chemistry is, biology is. Physics is the basis for all of that. And to say that physics had to come from someone, or somewhere, is an assertion that I havent seen a demonstration for. [00:51:00]

Michael Egnor: Nothing youve said has anything to do with Aquinass First Way. Change is not dependent on time. In fact, Aquinas

Matt Dillahunty: How can you have change without time?

Michael Egnor: Oh, sorry, causation has nothing to do with time.

Matt Dillahunty: How can you have causation without time? One thing follows another, thats a causal chain, there must be some time where one thing precedes another.

Michael Egnor: No, the hylomorphic metaphysics of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas understand causes and effects as simultaneous. [00:51:30]

Matt Dillahunty: There is a model for simultaneous causation, which actually hasnt been demonstrated.

Michael Egnor: No, no, the causes and effects are understood as happening at the same moment, at the same instant. There are other ways of understanding cause, for example, Humes way of understanding it, that is dependent on time, is notoriously a very inadequate way of understanding cause and effect. Humes problem with understanding cause and effect is that he brought time into it. [00:52:00]

But nothing youve said really has anything to do with Aquinass First Way, and the impossibility of infinite regress in an instrumental series of change.

Matt Dillahunty: How do you demonstrate the impossibility of infinite regress?

Michael Egnor: You demonstrate it by the fact that potency, possibility, is not actuality. And if you have an infinite series of possibilities in the past, with no actuality to start it, then nothing really exists. No causal chain can actually happen if everything is simply possible. Thats a logical conclusion from the argument. And in fact, its a scientific argument, meaning its an argument that has the same structure as any theory in science. That is, you take events that happen in the natural world change, or the redshift to discover the Big Bang and you follow a logical sequence to arrive at the most reasonable explanation for that phenomenon. The most reasonable explanation for the existence of change [00:53:00]

Matt Dillahunty: No, thats nonsense. Thats abductive argument.

Michael Egnor: Science and proofs of Gods existence follow the same logical structure. You take things that you observe in reality, you infer the best explanation for those things that you observe, thats what natural theology is. Thats also natural philosophy, which is science. Its all the same logical structure. [00:53:30]

Matt Dillahunty: Thats not the same. I dont want to get off into a sidetrack between inductive and abductive arguments, because I think science in many cases relies on both of them, but largely is abductive. But if you begin with an observation, and you infer the most likely explanation, you dont get to include undemonstrated things in your candidate explanations. If we find a dead body, we start listing off, What are the probably explanations for this dead body? We dont get to include magic in that explanation. [00:54:00]

Michael Egnor: Correct. So could you explain to me what is the singularity that caused the Big Bang?

Matt Dillahunty: I have no idea.

Note: The Big Bang singularity is the point at which In the 1960s, Hawking and the Oxford University physicist Roger Penrose proved that when space-time bends steeply enough, such as inside a black hole or perhaps during the Big Bang, it inevitably collapses, curving infinitely steeply toward a singularity, where Einsteins equations break down and a new, quantum theory of gravity is needed. Generally, at a singularity, conventional explanations break down. Quanta

Michael Egnor: But thats a scientific conclusion

Matt Dillahunty: Yes, and Im not a scientist, and the fact that something is a scientific conclusion

Michael Egnor: Scientists cant

Matt Dillahunty: Do I get to finish my thought at all?

Michael Egnor: Well, yeah, but your thought is nonsense. Scientists dont have

Matt Dillahunty: Oh, well thank you for cutting right to the chase for everybody, if were just going to

Michael Egnor: Scientists dont have an explanation for the singularity, because a singularity is not definable. Thats the whole point of it. A singularity is a solution to the equations of general relativity, where there is division by zero. That means its undefined. What led to the Big Bang was a singularity. Thats widely accepted in science, except nobody knows what a singularity is. A singularity isnt even a natural thing. So cosmology, basic physics, uses inferences to things that are supernatural. A singularity is not in nature, and science uses it routinely. Theres nothing wrong with transcending nature to explain events within nature. We do it all the time. Thats what science is all about. [00:55:30]

Note: Division by zero leads to undefined numbers so calculations cannot be pursued beyond that point (a singularity).

Matt Dillahunty: No, actually, you dont. You dont get to transcend what is demonstrable as a candidate explanation. You have to show that this is a candidate explanation. And so, when were talking about Big Bang cosmology, when you say, What caused the Big Bang? And I say, I dont know, Im not convinced that anyone knows at this point. And the fact that we dont have an answer or an explanation for something, does not mean that a supernatural explanation becomes plausible as a replacement while we dont have that.

Its the reason why we used to think Thor or Zeus threw lightning bolts, and now we dont. Any time we dont have a scientific explanation for something something that is grounded in evidence and observation, something that is testable and detectable we dont, then, just get to say, Ah, theres not currently a natural explanation, therefore a supernatural one will do.

You would still have to demonstrate the truth of that supernatural explanation, and we currently dont have any way, unless you know of one, and clearly you at least Well, I dont know how anybody could demonstrate the truth of any supernatural explanation, because all of them are God of the gaps in the sense that, Heres something we dont know, were going to insert a supernatural explanation for. [00:56:50]

Michael Egnor: Well, again, singularities are supernatural. They are not natural.

Matt Dillahunty: I would argue that the singularity as described is natural. It is the entirety of the natural universe. [00:57:00]

Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If youre saying its natural, what is it?

Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, youre not talking to a cosmologist, but the

Michael Egnor: Then why do you say its natural?

[Things became quite animated at this point.]

Matt Dillahunty: [00:58:00] Ive tried to answer it, every time I open my Say one more [bleep]

Next: Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? Thats Egnors accusation. Stay tuned.

The debate to date:

You may also wish to read:

Atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate me again Although he has said that he finds debates incredibly valuable, he is despite much urging making an exception in this case. Why? For millennia, theists have thought meticulously about Gods existence. New Atheists merely deny any need to make a case. Thats partly why I dumped atheism. (Michael Egnor)

Go here to see the original:
5. Egnor, Dillahunty Dispute the Basic Causes Behind the Universe - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

In Alangudi near Vamban, a village 20km from Pudukkottai town, Periyars Penn Yen Adimaiyaanal has become a talking point. The book is being discussed at tea stalls, workplaces and among friends, especially among women after free copies of the book were distributed by tea stall owner S Sivakumar on the 143rd birth anniversary of the social reformer.

For 34-year-old B Kalairani, a tailor, Periyar was a revered leader, but she had no idea about his writing. This is the first time I am reading his book and I am astonished that he spoke about widow remarriage and equal rights for women 50 years ago. Many women in my neighbourhood have started to discuss his views on womens rights, says Kalairani.

Sivakumar has so far distributed 450 books in and around 20 villages. He wanted to distribute the books to celebrate the Tamil Nadu governments announcement to observe Periyars birth anniversary as Social Justice Day.

Miles away, Chennaibased publisher Kavignar Thambi set a sales target of one lakh copies of Penn Yen Adimaiyanal on September 17, Periyars birth anniversary. We received orders and sold beyond our target. About 1.2 lakh books were sold in a single day, with many buyers gifting it to students and villagers, he said.

In the past five years, more people have turned to Periyars writings, say publishers, and it is across languages. V Kumaresan of Dravidar Kazhagam says Periyars writings on a wide range of topics such as atheism, women empowerment and casteless society have piqued the interest of readers.

Rajkamal Prakashan, a publication in Hindi, has come out with three volumes of Hindi translation of Periyars writing by Pramod Ranjan since July 2020. They are Jati Vyasvstha aur Pitrisatta, Sacchi Ramayan, and Dharm aur Vishvadrishti. These books were a hit among women and students belonging to marginalised sections of society in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Delhi, said Pramod Ranjan. Periyar is re-emerging as an icon among the younger generation in the Hindi heartland, he said.

Ashok Maheshwari, managing director of Rajkamal Prakashan, plans to publish more such translations. We feel that Periyars works should have been accessible to Hindi readers much earlier, he said.

The trend began after 2014-2015, said Prabhakaran Alagarsamy of Periyar Books.in. The monthly sale of books was around 60,000 in 2017. Now, it has touched 4 lakh. Nearly 80% of the books are on Periyar writings and thoughts, while the remaining are related to social justice and other social reformers such as Jothirao Phule. And many of them are young readers, says the publisher who has received orders from Delhi for Periyars translations in Hindi. Periyars Indrum and Endrum, Collected Works of Periyar, Rationalism Why? How?, and Pagutharivu Yen Etharku are among the popular books.

Suba Veerapandian of publishing house Karunchattai Pathipagam feels the words of Periyar remain relevant. A Korean University has approached Dravida Kazhagam to translate Periyars writing, he said. Periyar said that his biggest promoters were his critics. This is what has happened in the past few years. The more criticism he has drawn from the right wing, the more people want to know about him, he said. Writer Gnana Aloysius concedes. To cater to the demand, he has started to translate articles published in Kudiyarasu into English, and plans to publish it in 10 volumes.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

More here:
Periyars words are igniting minds again across languages - The Times of India Blog

29 September 2021, The Tablet

Its an interesting choice by English Heritage to ask Stephen Fry to provide the voiceover for its online effort to get visitors to former monastic sites in its care to undertake an hours contemplation and renewal regardless of your religious belief before closing time. Dont you hate that regardless of religious belief? He read from Aelred of Rievaulxs account of life in the monastery: There was no moment for idleness or dissipation but a marvellous freedom from the tumult of the world.

Mr Fry is something of a poster boy for agnosticism, or possibly atheism; it is heartening that he is susceptible to the holiness of the monastic life. Personally, I wish English Heritage would do more, and offer visitors an occasional proper service, vespers or compline in the ruins, so visitors can embrace an element of the actual monastic life.

Get Instant Access

Register for free to read this article in full

Subscribe for unlimited access

From just 30 quarterly

Complete access to all Tablet website content including all premium content.The full weekly edition in print and digital including our 179 years archive.PDF version to view on iPad, iPhone or computer.

Already a subscriber? Login

More:
The unwillingness to trace the fruit to the tree and to the root irritated me mightily - The Tablet

In a short time, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, which used to confine its activities to temple administration, has turned into one of the most important arms of the DMK government, waging an ideological war. Questions are being raised on whether the department and its proactive Minister, P.K. Sekarbabu, are the DMKs answer to criticism that it is a party dominated by atheists, who make light of the role of temples.

It is an indirect answer to the critics, said K. Thirunavukkarasu, a historian of the Dravidian movement.

Activities of Mr. Sekarbabu have proved that the DMK government has drawn a clear line between ideological moorings of the party and the duties of a welfare State, he said.

The DMK, as a mainstream party, faces two challenges in a highly polarised enviroment in the country. Leaders of its arch-rival, AIADMK from MGR to Jayalalithaa and O. Panneerselvam to Edappadi K. Palaniswami never made secret of their religious faith. Of late, the BJP and some Hindu outfits have tried attracting Hindu voters critical of the DMKs avowed atheist ideology.

Ever since it returned to power in May, the DMK government has been under compulsion to strike a balance between the aspirations of the devotees, longing for improvement in the administration of temples, and a section that is particular about introducing reforms. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has headlong tread into an area, the appointment of priests from all castes, where others, including his father M. Karunanidhi, have had to think twice before entering. He brought to fruition the all-community archaka policy, introduced by his father. The dual tasks of silencing the conservatives and winning the confidence of devotees was left to Mr. Sekarbabu, whose day-to-day activities seem to have taken the wind out of the sail of Hindutva forces.

However, writer V. Geetha disagrees with the view that DMK was under compulsion to pay attention to temple administration.

They might be doing it strategically. They are sending a message that one need not be wedded to Hindutva ideology to intervene in the functioning of Hindu temples. Temples have been administered by the State at different moments in history, after all. The DMK government appears to want to invoke the long history of the Dravidian movement in this context, she said.

The Justice party and the independent Ministry under Subbaroyan argued for secular control of public funds made over to temples, and supported unfettered temple entry.

We know that the DMK has abjured atheism as a political policy, and has upheld the unity of faiths. But their leading thinkers did not entirely give up their public critique of religious power and wealth, at least until the 1960s. The AIADMKs leadership was less invested in this sort of critique, and were more resolutely Hindu. The DMK is trying to connect perhaps to an older political lineage, which viewed temples as both places of worship and as public spaces, supported by public funds and public labour, she said.

The announcements made by Mr. Sekarbabu in the Assembly on Saturday, particularly that of launching 10 arts and science colleges, a major task even for the Higher Education Department, have taken many by surprise. Immense wealth, in the form of lands, buildings and jewellery, in the possession of temples, has made it possible for the Minister to come out with such projects which were unthinkable in the past.

Mr. Thirunavukkarasu also said the government was under no compulsion. On the contrary, the Minister is telling the world that he is doing what was waiting to be done and what remained undone, he said.

Continue reading here:
Softening the DMKs pro-atheist image - The Hindu

In light of the last Fayette County School Board meeting, it is obvious that the time for discussion is over.

From the long lines in the hot sun due to limited public seating, to the plethora of armed guards, to the snarky running Facebook commentary by Mr. Leonard Presberg during parents impassioned pleas to make decisions for their childrens health and education enough is enough.

First, all board members indeed, all school employees must remember that they work for We The People. They do not work for The Department of Education, they do not work for the media, and they certainly do not work for themselves.

The citizens of Fayette County fund our schools, which means our schools must reflect our local values. If the past two board meetings are any indication of current Fayette County sentiment, its safe to say that most of us oppose masking our children.

Also, I do not want atheism or Satanic clubs in our schools. I do not want our kids being taught about masturbation, Critical Race Theory, or how lockdowns, masks, and experimental gene therapy are good things. Any argument that the First Amendment applies to school is moot schools are not the responsibility of the federal government, Bill Gates, or even Leonard Presberg. They are the responsibility of the community. The Department of Education was created under Jimmy Carter, not the Constitution. It is time to reject federal and local dictatorships over our schools and declare our authority.

Second, the disrespect shown by Leonard Presberg toward his constituents along with the complicity of every other board member is abominable. Perhaps in a kingdom it is permissible to look down your nose and scorn those whom you perceive as your subjects. But in America, our elected officials work for us.

Finally, the time to act is now. Parents must engage and do one or more of (at least) three things:

If you do not want to mask you children, do not mask your children. When your children are forced to wear a mask, tell them to refuse. When Covid vaccines become mandatory (and they will), refuse to inject your children with experimental mRNA gene therapy. We must band together and civilly disobey these unconstitutional and inhumane mandates.

Pull your children out of the public school system. If you cannot pull them out, write, call, and visit your schools to demand the removal of masks. Demand the school board inform you of what changes they are currently planning on making to sex education.

Demand that topics such as Marxism (and its derivative Critical Race Theory) be left out of our school curriculums. Same goes for Atheism, Satan worship, and anti-Christian, anti-conservative messaging.

Demand that our children recite the pledge of allegiance and learn to love their country. Get rid of Brain Pop and its progressive agenda. It is time to go on the offense, because the other side will not stop until Christianity, American history, and childhood innocence are destroyed.

Finally, we must vote every board member out. Then, we must demand that our new board members replace the current Superintendent. If at all possible, RUN! You will find a groundswell of support from passionate parents who want the best for our children.

It is time to reclaim our schools. If we do not stand up and reject the current madness unfolding in the public school system, we will lose our children to the destructive, hateful, and de-humanizing ideals of progressivism. And if we lose our children, God help us.

Michele Cooper

Fayetteville, Ga.

Read this article:
The time for discussion is over it's time to take back our schools - The Citizen.com

For the first time ever members of Atheist Ireland have been invited to meet a Lord Mayor of Dublin as part of the usual round of meetings that take place when a new occupant assumes the office.

Labour Cllr Alison Gilliland, who became Lord Mayor last June, met Atheist Ireland chairman Michael Nugent and its Human Rights Officer Jane Donnelly at the Mansion House this on Tuesday afternoon.

It is customary for a new Lord Mayor of Dublin to meet the President, Taoiseach, Dublins two Archbishops, an Imam and Rabbi but this year she requested a meeting with Atheist Ireland also.

Welcoming the invitation, Ms Donnelly said it was at her initiative and never happened before. She felt it important that the Lord Mayor had placed Atheist Ireland on a par with the religions as, so frequently, atheists are portrayed as people of no belief, which was not the case. It had placed religion and beliefs on a par, she felt.

Mr Nugent noted how we are often described as people of no belief or as nones, which is not true. We have positive beliefs, he said.

They were very pleased at the meeting, where discussion centred on the importance of recognising atheism and other non religious philosophical convictions as having the same positive status as religious beliefs he said.

They also discussed our alliance with the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland regarding secular education, human rights and separation of church and State.

He remarked how so often people called for engagement between religions and the secular, but were the only ones doing so.

According to the 2016 census, people of no religion (including atheists and agnostics) in Ireland numbered 481,388, or 10.1 per cent of the population. It represented an increase of 73.6 per cent on the 2011 census figure.

With an average age of 34, it was also the second largest grouping in Ireland after Roman Catholics and exceeded the numbers for all those affiliated to the other Churches and faiths in the State. In Dublin people of no religion then made up 48 per cent of those in the 24 to 29 age group.

Read more:
Lord Mayor of Dublin invites atheists for Mansion House meeting - The Irish Times