Apologies for going off-topic here, but I think you may find this one of interest.
PZ Myers was recently accused of:
* Being unscrupulous. * Being a shepherd of internet trolls. * Running an odious blog.
and that "Having a blog and building a large community of readers can destroy a person’s intellectual integrity—as appears to have happened in the case of PZ Myers."
"I do a post on the Unmoved Mover and Loftus' name shows up by the seventh comment?"
Simply proves the point there ain't no Unmoved Mover, only everything moving relative to everything else. One could even logically argue that 'stationary' is 'movement relative to another another object' that is in a condition of stasis or equilibrium. But to suggest an Unmoved Mover is simply the act of positing an arbitrary cut-off that ends with god [which explains nothing], a cut-off one unnecessary step further than it needs to be to explain the the reality of the universe as we all see it, Only those with a particular penchant for their own explanation posit anything beyond the universe coming into existence by a perfectly natural process that is yet to be fully explained, not some imagined neanderthalic-form of bronze-age thinking that was a product of a society and a community far removed from from our understanding in the 21stC.
Papalinton, "neanderthalic" isn't a word. Neanderthal can be used as both a noun and adjective.
Secondly, Neanderthal man died out around 30,000 years ago and bronze was first used around 6000 years ago. You don't seem to have a very fine touch with your rhetoric at the moment.
Doesn't any creative act involve some kind of "motion"? So the concept of an unmoved mover needs clarification to me. How do you move something without "moving" it?
Papalinton, "neanderthalic" isn't a word. Neanderthal can be used as both a noun and adjective.
Secondly, Neanderthal man died out around 30,000 years ago and bronze was first used around 6000 years ago. You don't seem to have a very fine touch with your rhetoric at the moment.
At the moment? Sorry, man, but you are not dealing with a very smart person in Linton. He's the typical cringe-inducing example of someone who wants desperately to come off as smart, but fails every time. When he's not out and out being caught plagiarizing.
I'm sorry. I mean, uh. He's cro-magnomonical! His atheisticalistic expositionistry exhibits revelrification in ignoramundocities.
Cale B T You seem to make reading and comprehension a very difficult task when it is indeed an easy process if one exercises it regularly. Clearly Apologetics, the process of interpretation of the interpretation of the re-interpretation of the previous interpretation, does confuse people when it comes to the normal conventions of applying reading skill and its critical corollary, understanding.
I didn't say Neanderthal. I said Neanderthalic-form, you know, ancient thought patterns that characterise the type of mental processes to match belief in the bible as the primitive ancients would have interpreted it; magic, superstition, ghosts, spirits, supernaturalism and things that go bump in the night, all 'real' and part of daily life as far as they knew. But we know differently today, don't we? Well, those of us with no personal itch or proclivity to superstition and magic, and channeling, and speaking to the dead etc etc.
The imagery of " ... some imagined neanderthalic-form of bronze-age thinking .." is very much how I would describe the type of thought patterns employed by bible crazies. I remind you the bible came out of the bronze age at around the supposed time of Ramses II, at around the time of the Roman Republic, the late Bronze Age as the authors of the OT attempted to claim.
Sheesh, Cale B T, you really need to undertake some literary courses to bone up your skills of comprehension and to appreciate the nuances of the written word. In fact, you would not have exacerbated the problem of a 'literalist' interpretation of my wonderful literary imagery, had you refrained from interpreting the bible as fact or in the literal sense over all those decades of personal involvement that now dictates the limits of your comprehension skills. A little practice would introduce a wonderful world of erudition, of being lettered, academia, being widely-read, educated and indeed well-educated rather than simply plumping for the lowest common denominator, functionally competent.
I retract my second claim and apologise. I still maintain that neanderthalic is not a real word, though. Now, you wrote:
"In fact, you would not have exacerbated the problem of a 'literalist' interpretation of my wonderful literary imagery had you refrained from interpreting the bible as fact or in the literal sense over all those decades of personal involvement that now dictates the limits of your comprehension skills."
I have been a Christian for just over a year. When, in a previous post, you wrote “I am giving you first hand, an atheist's insight, one that you can hone your apologetic skills on, rather than rely on talking amongst yourselves what an atheist might be like.” I pointed out to you that I grew up in a non-religious home, my brother and mother are currently eliminative materialists, I never went to Sunday School as a child and I was educated in public schools. Before becoming a Christian I was a deist for a year, and before that, an atheist for six or so years. In terms of "personal involvement", I probably have far more Gnu-atheist style ranting "on my clock" than anything else.
If you're looking for a good book to contrast Christianity with what the gnus like to call "Bronze Age Thinking", you can't do better than going to G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. Some bits in the early chapters are a bit outdated nowadays (the book was written in the 1920's), but the reasoning is as relevant as ever. And as a bonus, Chesterton is, as always, a great read!
Also, C.S. Lewis's God in the Dock blows practically every atheist argument out of the water. Pure brilliance from cover to cover.
And as a Charles Williams fan, I can't resist adding He Came Down From Heaven to the mix. But you might find that one a bit heavy going. Williams can be a challenging read (part of why I like him).
Cale B T "I have been a Christian for just over a year."
So your initial dabbling in the occult still oozes with the freshness and spiritual excitement of adolescent carnality. I say, good for you. To each their own, is a good motto with me.
And yes I had forgotten that you had been a believer for only a short time. I retract all that I said regarding the decades of Apologetical thinking. That is still ahead of you. However, from your commentary it seems you will be able to converse with the best of them in no time at all. When you meet Aquinas and Augustine, give them my regards. Apparently they are still around giving lectures on the five ways, not in universities and institutes of higher learning but from the pulpit and the magisterium.
You inform, " ... my brother and mother are currently eliminative materialists, ...." Are they atheist or agnostic eliminative materialists? Is 'Eliminative materialist' a new theological term for? What?
Aside from all the jesting, Cale B T, I hope you have found what you are looking for. But please, don't trot it out as 'the truth' otherwise the hindus and the Muslims are sure to object. It is your truth but not of others, not even me.
Papalinton, for once, skirts the edge of the truth when he writes: "But please, don't trot out [your faith] as 'the truth'. Otherwise the Hindus and the Muslims are sure to object." Because yes, there is tremendous beauty and insight in Hinduism, for which I have the utmost respect. Likewise, I stand in awe at the deep wisdom of Daoism, and have unabashed envy for the wonderful sense of family and tradition that underlies Yoruba or Shintoism - traits that our modern, materialist Western culture are in desperate need of. All of these religions are for sure reflections of that Great Light that enlightens all men. Both Paul and John in the New Testament wrote repeatedly that God's Truth was available to everyone. Why should we not take them at their word? "Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him I declare." (Acts 17:23, as translated by Charles Williams)
It seems the only people who remain completely in the dark are those who curse all light, or deny that there even is a light.
"is 'Eliminative materialist' a new theological term for?"
Sorry, this was sloppy: My mother and brother believe that everything that exists, including everything which is commonly referred to as the mind, is ultimately reducible to bottom-up physical causation.
"So your initial dabbling in the occult still oozes with the freshness and spiritual excitement of adolescent carnality."
I don't think you know much about my conversion, the way in which I approach my beliefs, my sexual orientation and/or encounters, my history of mental health, or my daily life in general. So, why did you make this statement?
"don't trot it out as 'the truth' otherwise the hindus and the Muslims are sure to object."
Papalinton, I will repeat what I have said before: if you want me to engage you with regard to the supposed challenge of religious pluralism, then by all means, write a blog post on it and I will reply.
Bob "Because yes, there is tremendous beauty and insight in Hinduism, for which I have the utmost respect. Likewise, I stand in awe at the deep wisdom of Daoism, and have unabashed envy for the wonderful sense of family and tradition that underlies Yoruba or Shintoism - .......... All of these religions are for sure reflections of that Great Light that enlightens all men. "
Yes Bob, the conceived 'light on the hill', are all wonderful ideals. I also am in awe of nature and the universe and my inextricable connection with it and relationship in it. The single greatest problematic circumstance is the manner in which these ideals are completely subsumed and manifests itself as, institutionalised religious homophobia, opposition to recognising the rights and according gays and lesbians the dignity to lead their lives as they would chose, the fractious attitude towards women's health, religious exclusivism, intolerance of difference masked under the rubric of 'the right to practice their religion, child abuse, to mention just a few.
There is a deep and troubling disconnect between the ideals you dream of, Bob, and the way people understand and can see how they are expressed in the community.
The following is of interest in the way people are now voting with their feet:
26 comments:
I did, but was waiting for someone to comment.
So you were an unmoved non-mover?
I guess everyone else is unmoved in this one too! Absence of opposing argument validates unmoved mover?
I hear a motion... does anyone second?
I can't. I would have to exist already.
Victor,
Apologies for going off-topic here, but I think you may find this one of interest.
PZ Myers was recently accused of:
* Being unscrupulous.
* Being a shepherd of internet trolls.
* Running an odious blog.
and that "Having a blog and building a large community of readers can destroy a person’s intellectual integrity—as appears to have happened in the case of PZ Myers."
And just who lodged these accusations against PZ?
That'd be one Sam Harris.
Yes. PZ Myers has gone feral.
Even John Loftus has called him in question.
Indefensible and inexcusable.
I do a post on the Unmoved Mover and Loftus' name shows up by the seventh comment?
Vic,
Yeah, the local atheists get pretty quiet when there's not much room for ranting, eh?
"I do a post on the Unmoved Mover and Loftus' name shows up by the seventh comment?"
Simply proves the point there ain't no Unmoved Mover, only everything moving relative to everything else. One could even logically argue that 'stationary' is 'movement relative to another another object' that is in a condition of stasis or equilibrium. But to suggest an Unmoved Mover is simply the act of positing an arbitrary cut-off that ends with god [which explains nothing], a cut-off one unnecessary step further than it needs to be to explain the the reality of the universe as we all see it, Only those with a particular penchant for their own explanation posit anything beyond the universe coming into existence by a perfectly natural process that is yet to be fully explained, not some imagined neanderthalic-form of bronze-age thinking that was a product of a society and a community far removed from from our understanding in the 21stC.
Papalinton, "neanderthalic" isn't a word. Neanderthal can be used as both a noun and adjective.
Secondly, Neanderthal man died out around 30,000 years ago and bronze was first used around 6000 years ago. You don't seem to have a very fine touch with your rhetoric at the moment.
Doesn't any creative act involve some kind of "motion"? So the concept of an unmoved mover needs clarification to me. How do you move something without "moving" it?
Cale,
Papalinton, "neanderthalic" isn't a word. Neanderthal can be used as both a noun and adjective.
Secondly, Neanderthal man died out around 30,000 years ago and bronze was first used around 6000 years ago. You don't seem to have a very fine touch with your rhetoric at the moment.
At the moment? Sorry, man, but you are not dealing with a very smart person in Linton. He's the typical cringe-inducing example of someone who wants desperately to come off as smart, but fails every time. When he's not out and out being caught plagiarizing.
I'm sorry. I mean, uh. He's cro-magnomonical! His atheisticalistic expositionistry exhibits revelrification in ignoramundocities.
There. Language Linton can understand. ;)
Cale B T
You seem to make reading and comprehension a very difficult task when it is indeed an easy process if one exercises it regularly. Clearly Apologetics, the process of interpretation of the interpretation of the re-interpretation of the previous interpretation, does confuse people when it comes to the normal conventions of applying reading skill and its critical corollary, understanding.
I didn't say Neanderthal. I said Neanderthalic-form, you know, ancient thought patterns that characterise the type of mental processes to match belief in the bible as the primitive ancients would have interpreted it; magic, superstition, ghosts, spirits, supernaturalism and things that go bump in the night, all 'real' and part of daily life as far as they knew. But we know differently today, don't we? Well, those of us with no personal itch or proclivity to superstition and magic, and channeling, and speaking to the dead etc etc.
The imagery of " ... some imagined neanderthalic-form of bronze-age thinking .." is very much how I would describe the type of thought patterns employed by bible crazies. I remind you the bible came out of the bronze age at around the supposed time of Ramses II, at around the time of the Roman Republic, the late Bronze Age as the authors of the OT attempted to claim.
Sheesh, Cale B T, you really need to undertake some literary courses to bone up your skills of comprehension and to appreciate the nuances of the written word. In fact, you would not have exacerbated the problem of a 'literalist' interpretation of my wonderful literary imagery, had you refrained from interpreting the bible as fact or in the literal sense over all those decades of personal involvement that now dictates the limits of your comprehension skills. A little practice would introduce a wonderful world of erudition, of being lettered, academia, being widely-read, educated and indeed well-educated rather than simply plumping for the lowest common denominator, functionally competent.
"He's the typical cringe-inducing example of someone who wants desperately to come off as smart, but fails every time."
So says the Transfigurative bright light of the bottom feeders, who wears his ignorance permanently imprinted on his forehead.
I retract my second claim and apologise. I still maintain that neanderthalic is not a real word, though. Now, you wrote:
"In fact, you would not have exacerbated the problem of a 'literalist' interpretation of my wonderful literary imagery had you refrained from interpreting the bible as fact or in the literal sense over all those decades of personal involvement that now dictates the limits of your comprehension skills."
I have been a Christian for just over a year. When, in a previous post, you wrote “I am giving you first hand, an atheist's insight, one that you can hone your apologetic skills on, rather than rely on talking amongst yourselves what an atheist might be like.” I pointed out to you that I grew up in a non-religious home, my brother and mother are currently eliminative materialists, I never went to Sunday School as a child and I was educated in public schools. Before becoming a Christian I was a deist for a year, and before that, an atheist for six or so years. In terms of "personal involvement", I probably have far more Gnu-atheist style ranting "on my clock" than anything else.
Cale,
If you're looking for a good book to contrast Christianity with what the gnus like to call "Bronze Age Thinking", you can't do better than going to G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. Some bits in the early chapters are a bit outdated nowadays (the book was written in the 1920's), but the reasoning is as relevant as ever. And as a bonus, Chesterton is, as always, a great read!
Also, C.S. Lewis's God in the Dock blows practically every atheist argument out of the water. Pure brilliance from cover to cover.
And as a Charles Williams fan, I can't resist adding He Came Down From Heaven to the mix. But you might find that one a bit heavy going. Williams can be a challenging read (part of why I like him).
Thanks for the recommendations, Bob. I've read "The Everlasting Man" before, but not the others you mentioned.
Cale B T
"I have been a Christian for just over a year."
So your initial dabbling in the occult still oozes with the freshness and spiritual excitement of adolescent carnality. I say, good for you. To each their own, is a good motto with me.
And yes I had forgotten that you had been a believer for only a short time. I retract all that I said regarding the decades of Apologetical thinking. That is still ahead of you. However, from your commentary it seems you will be able to converse with the best of them in no time at all. When you meet Aquinas and Augustine, give them my regards. Apparently they are still around giving lectures on the five ways, not in universities and institutes of higher learning but from the pulpit and the magisterium.
You inform, " ... my brother and mother are currently eliminative materialists, ...." Are they atheist or agnostic eliminative materialists? Is 'Eliminative materialist' a new theological term for? What?
Aside from all the jesting, Cale B T, I hope you have found what you are looking for. But please, don't trot it out as 'the truth' otherwise the hindus and the Muslims are sure to object. It is your truth but not of others, not even me.
Cheers
"Also, C.S. Lewis's God in the Dock blows practically every atheist argument out of the water. Pure brilliance from cover to cover."
All his works of fantasy are pure brilliance. This one is no exception. Anyone would think they were of real people and real places and real events.
Cale,
Papalinton, for once, skirts the edge of the truth when he writes: "But please, don't trot out [your faith] as 'the truth'. Otherwise the Hindus and the Muslims are sure to object." Because yes, there is tremendous beauty and insight in Hinduism, for which I have the utmost respect. Likewise, I stand in awe at the deep wisdom of Daoism, and have unabashed envy for the wonderful sense of family and tradition that underlies Yoruba or Shintoism - traits that our modern, materialist Western culture are in desperate need of. All of these religions are for sure reflections of that Great Light that enlightens all men. Both Paul and John in the New Testament wrote repeatedly that God's Truth was available to everyone. Why should we not take them at their word? "Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him I declare." (Acts 17:23, as translated by Charles Williams)
It seems the only people who remain completely in the dark are those who curse all light, or deny that there even is a light.
This purely depressing. I'm signing off Dangerous Idea for who knows how long, mostly because wherever Paps goes, quality of discussion plunges.
Take care y'all. Sorry it had to come to this.
Paps, please take our advice to heart and consider starting your own blog.
"is 'Eliminative materialist' a new theological term for?"
Sorry, this was sloppy: My mother and brother believe that everything that exists, including everything which is commonly referred to as the mind, is ultimately reducible to bottom-up physical causation.
"So your initial dabbling in the occult still oozes with the freshness and spiritual excitement of adolescent carnality."
I don't think you know much about my conversion, the way in which I approach my beliefs, my sexual orientation and/or encounters, my history of mental health, or my daily life in general. So, why did you make this statement?
"don't trot it out as 'the truth' otherwise the hindus and the Muslims are sure to object."
Papalinton, I will repeat what I have said before: if you want me to engage you with regard to the supposed challenge of religious pluralism, then by all means, write a blog post on it and I will reply.
CL,
Don't go! The least of your contributions outweighs all of the tripe spilled by that other guy put together.
Bob
"Because yes, there is tremendous beauty and insight in Hinduism, for which I have the utmost respect. Likewise, I stand in awe at the deep wisdom of Daoism, and have unabashed envy for the wonderful sense of family and tradition that underlies Yoruba or Shintoism - .......... All of these religions are for sure reflections of that Great Light that enlightens all men. "
Yes Bob, the conceived 'light on the hill', are all wonderful ideals. I also am in awe of nature and the universe and my inextricable connection with it and relationship in it. The single greatest problematic circumstance is the manner in which these ideals are completely subsumed and manifests itself as, institutionalised religious homophobia, opposition to recognising the rights and according gays and lesbians the dignity to lead their lives as they would chose, the fractious attitude towards women's health, religious exclusivism, intolerance of difference masked under the rubric of 'the right to practice their religion, child abuse, to mention just a few.
There is a deep and troubling disconnect between the ideals you dream of, Bob, and the way people understand and can see how they are expressed in the community.
The following is of interest in the way people are now voting with their feet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/religiosity-plummets-ireland-declines-worldwide-atheism_n_1757453.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=080912&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
Post a Comment