tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7927632159011774809..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: By way of clarification--atheism and hateVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2449489049560231302012-06-01T08:12:38.819-07:002012-06-01T08:12:38.819-07:00Peace Jeff,
Reason is what it's all about.
&...Peace Jeff,<br /><br />Reason is what it's all about.<br /><br />>Well, it sounds like that is something we both agree upon, namely, that the REASON RALLY is failing in their mission to make atheists look better.<br /><br />Pretty much.<br /><br />For me it's isn't so much which side "looks better" if I believe in Divine Provence.<br /><br />But at minimum we should all try to be rational beings.<br /><br />Even if I believe(& I do BTW) Atheism is rationally or philosophically incoherent or just wrong. I know an Atheist can aspire to be rational and try to be philosophically coherent as possible.<br /><br />I also know(speaking generally) eve if you have the ULTIMATE TRUTH you might still mix some irrationality in with it.<br /><br />Example: Atheists or Theists could be right but personally have some bad arguments that do reflect their ultimate rightness.<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />PS Mass Effect # so far seems awesome!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52679175219699695692012-06-01T00:04:42.212-07:002012-06-01T00:04:42.212-07:00Presumably the fence sitters would be open to rati...Presumably the fence sitters would be open to rational discourse. However, a different strategy was considered in 2009. <br /><br />The "Reason Rally" was, perhaps, an experiment. However, to broaden the context, Dawkins has been on the sharp end of some nasty rhetoric in the British press recently. (See the Parris article that I linked to.)<br /><br />So perhaps his temper snapped, or he felt he was losing the initiative in these "debates"?Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75483757802380344992012-05-31T23:59:07.722-07:002012-05-31T23:59:07.722-07:00As I understand it, the strategy does not aim to c...As I understand it, the strategy does not aim to challenge those who are beyond the reach of rational discourse. To quote Dawkins<br /><br />"I am more interested <b>in the fence-sitters</b> who haven't really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. "Mr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74539321701663493462012-05-31T21:57:12.979-07:002012-05-31T21:57:12.979-07:00Take this comment from Matt earlier in this thread...Take this comment from Matt earlier in this thread: <br /><br />(1) Did Dawkins ever say that ridicule and mocking were a valid substitute for reasoned discourse? No, of course not. We both know that there are people on both sides of the fence who are beyond the discourse of reason. Sometimes, people need to be shock-and-awed from their position by satire, ridicule, and mockery. <br /><br />No, no, no, no, no, heavens no. This is a poison pill that is going to effectively wipe out serious and interesting exchange on religious subjects. It means that I can try to persuade you to believe as I do, and since my arguments are sooooo good, if you don't buy them, then we have to use ridicule tactics on you. Defenders of each side have to do their best to make their case, it may persuade some, but not everyone, but that's what argumentation is for. As Lewis says, argument has a life of its own, you follow the argument where it leads; there are aspects of the belief decision process that we may not be able to put on the table, and so we do our best and leave it at that. If we are Christians, we leave the rest in the hands of the Holy Spirit. If we engage in rational discourse concerning these matters of profound significance existentially, we make a commitment to the process of following the argument where it leads. <br /><br />It is, for example, very easy to come up with a description of evolution that makes it look stupid. I've heard it a million times. If I do that, and then let out a horse laugh, have I made an argument against evolution? Of course not. Distinguishing real absurdity from the appearance of absurdity generated by a tendentious description is part of what we need to do to learn how to think. Dawkins and those that follow him are so opposed to religion that getting peopel to reject religion is more important than being faithful to the process of rational discourse. The end justifies the means, even if that means isn't really a rational process at all. Some of his statements make him sound like a schoolyard bully who will do anything to get what he wants, in this case, to turn people into atheists. <br /><br />This seems to me to be caused by hatred. I understand the frustration he has experienced as an evolutionary biologist, (I've been told that all evolutionary biologists get a lot of hate mail from Christians), but that doesn't make his tactics acceptable. <br /><br />Not only that, but when he calls raising a child in a religion child abuse and compares it to sexual abuse, he is implying that the government should have the right to interfere with this process, as the government does interfere when there is sexual abuse. This is something that undermines something that previous atheists have attempted to defend, and that is the separation of church and state. <br /><br />I noticed that some people at SO, some of whom I respect greatly, think the quality of my blog has gone down of late. If so, I suspect it is because I have been reacting to this poisoned intellectual atmosphere, and have probably not found very constructive ways of doing so. <br /><br />C. S. Lewis did a lot of things in his life, including Medieval and Renaissance scholarship (his "day job, as it were), children's literature, science fiction, devotional writing, and, of course Christian apologetics. But I wonder if one achievement is insufficiently noted, and that is his presiding over the Oxford Socratic Club. This activity resulted in the Anscombe critique of his AFR, and actually launched the career of Antony Flew as an atheist philosopher. But his effort to sustain an open environment where these issues can be discussed is, in my view, maybe one of his greatest achievements. I recommend reading the essay he wrote about the founding of the club.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82956343234151198012012-05-31T21:25:48.560-07:002012-05-31T21:25:48.560-07:00Jeff: I think the New Atheists are doing things wh...Jeff: I think the New Atheists are doing things which are a fundamental betrayal of the basic rules which must underlie all discourse concerning matters so serious as religion. It affects people like John Loftus, who has some interesting ideas, but invariably ruins the possibility of serious discourse with him by propagandistic tactics. A kind of atheist fanaticism is brewing, which makes undermines the very process which makes atheist-theist dialogue at all rewarding.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69502187124698802262012-05-31T21:19:42.353-07:002012-05-31T21:19:42.353-07:00Ben-- I just saw your earlier reply. You wrote:
S...Ben-- I just saw your earlier reply. You wrote:<br /><br /><i>So forgive me Jeff. You seem a rational sort. But you can see under the circumstances why the REASON RALLY is failing in their mission to make Atheists look better. These guys are either the Klan light or the Keystone Cops.</i><br /><br />Well, it sounds like that is something we both agree upon, namely, that the REASON RALLY is failing in their mission to make atheists look better.<br /><br />On another subject, I can empathize with theists who've complained about how the atheists who organized the Reason Rally appropriate the word "reason" for their side. Just as many atheists have tried to hijack the words "freethought" and "reason," many theists have tried to hijack the word "moral" in a way that implies theists are "more moral" than atheists. Atheists don't like being told, even if indirectly and by implication, that they are less moral than theists, any more than theists like being told that they are less rational than atheists.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8966664588714528282012-05-31T21:08:44.956-07:002012-05-31T21:08:44.956-07:00Hi Ben -- Thanks again for your reply. I must be o...Hi Ben -- Thanks again for your reply. I must be out of touch with Dawkins; I wasn't aware he said that raising your kids Catholic is worse than molestation. I disagree with that and am puzzled as to how he arrived at that conclusion.<br /><br />I tend to focus on reading philosophers of religion, not the so-called "New Atheists," so it's not surprising to me I may have missed what Dawkins said.<br /><br />JeffSecular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34419569405174399932012-05-31T21:00:22.291-07:002012-05-31T21:00:22.291-07:00MickRuggieri is on to something.......MickRuggieri is on to something.......Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24895937523847677262012-05-31T20:58:20.171-07:002012-05-31T20:58:20.171-07:00>I'm still trying to sort out how others ar...>I'm still trying to sort out how others are making the distinction between, on the one hand, mockery and ridicule of religious beliefs, and, on the other hand, hatred of religious believers.<br /><br />I have no problem with mocking bad logic that leads to a belief. Regardless if I agree with the belief or not. Or mocking a bad argument for it's own sake. <br />But you must really have a great deal of contempt for someone to tell them they are "wrong" ans not being able to articulate why in a rational manner outside of mindless ridicule. Like that David Silverman guy. <br /><br />>For contrast, consider that Wintery Knight has written, "Show me an atheist and I’ll show you a person who is unskilled AT LIFE." Is that hate speech against atheists?<br /><br />Could be,assuming I had good reason to believe he hated Atheists. Like him saying raising your kids Atheist was worst then molesting them.<br /><br />Thought Wintery Knight is making personal comments about individual Atheists and then throws in a heasty generalization. It is no different then when Loftus shows up & starts ranting to everyone's face that they are "deluted" for being believers.<br /><br />I would like to see it stop but I know Dawkins won't stop and too many Atheists will listen to him and become Gnus.<br /><br />Now I got to make myself play ME3.<br /><br />Or I will be here all night.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5375245460680860542012-05-31T20:45:23.951-07:002012-05-31T20:45:23.951-07:00Good evening Dr. Reppert,
I first want to thank ...Good evening Dr. Reppert, <br /><br />I first want to thank you for sharing your blog. <br /><br />I believe the main problem, and the obvious elephant in the room that Richard Dawkins seems to want to ignore is the fact that the imperfect human condition is responsible for what he defines as "evil". <br /><br />While I must acknowledge that religion certainly can and has been used as an excuse to commit the most heinous of crimes, mankind has demonstrated, especially through the atheistic regimes of the 20th century, that man hardly needs "religion" to commit atrocities. <br /><br />It is not religion that is responsible for evil, it is man, and until Professor Dawkins comes to realize this truth, which has been demonstrated, he will not understand that his argument is based on a faulty premise. <br /><br />I further want to add, that according to his own philosophy, morality is subjective to the individual, and not dependent on something outside of himself, and as a result, he cannot call anything evil if he is in fact being true to his own beliefs. This given the fact that based on his own beliefs, one mans evil is another mans good, and his label is, by default, no better than the view of another.MickRuggierihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00585712416367860700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23617739155592230952012-05-31T20:43:12.121-07:002012-05-31T20:43:12.121-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26184707538455596342012-05-31T20:36:57.179-07:002012-05-31T20:36:57.179-07:00@Jeff
>So "they" appears to be the &...@Jeff<br /><br />>So "they" appears to be the "National Atheist Party" or NAP. I'd never even heard of WAP before. What was NAP's role at the Rally? Were they the organizers of the rally? Sponsors? Or, for lack of a better term, merely "exhibitors" (a group who rented a booth)?<br /><br />>These distinctions seem relevant to me in order to determine if there is a legitimate analogy between a KKK rally and the Reason Rally.<br /><br />Those are fair points. I readly concede their validity.<br /><br />>In my experience, most atheists recognize that Westboro Baptist Church is an extremist group, NOT representative of theists in general. <br /><br />I don't doubt this is true but Gnu'atheists OTOH. I very much doubt they see a difference otherwise they wouldn' be Gnus would they?<br /><br />>For what it is worth, here is NAP's explanation of their motivation for inviting WBC:<br /><br />>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/14/national-atheist-party-responds-to-criticism-about-inviting-westboro-baptist-church-to-reason-rally/<br /><br />People have a right to defend themselves when accused. but this stands out.<br /><br />QUOTE"It is no big secret that atheists and freethinkers have a major image problem." <br /><br />Yeh because you mocked believers and your chief spokesmen advocates ridicule in place of argument. So they did it as a joke? <br /><br />It might have been funny accept David Silverman of American Atheists abruptly declined, a Christian Minsitry called TRUE REASON an invitation to the rally.<br /><br />Said David Silverman of American atheists.QUOTE "Make no mistake – you are not welcomed guests at the rally. We are not going to DC for ‘dialogue’ with people who believe ridiculous things – we are going to have fun with other like-minded people. Those who proselytize or interfere with our legal and well-deserved enjoyment will be escorted to the 1st Amendment pen by security, which will be plentiful, where you can stand with the Westborough [sic] Baptists and shout yourselves hoarse."END QUOTE<br /><br />http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2012/03/david-silverman-of-american-atheists.html<br /><br />So forgive me Jeff. You seem a rational sort. But you can see under the circumstances why the REASON RALLY is failing in their mission to make Atheists look better. These guys are either the Klan light or the Keystone Cops.<br /><br />Cheers.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19198865871751365272012-05-31T20:24:36.737-07:002012-05-31T20:24:36.737-07:00I'm still trying to sort out how others are ma...I'm still trying to sort out how others are making the distinction between, on the one hand, mockery and ridicule of religious beliefs, and, on the other hand, hatred of religious believers. Reppert, in his post, wrote: "What I am claiming is that the rally involved expressions of hatred toward religious people." Maybe I am being too literal, but I didn't read anything in the transcript of Dawkins's speech that is hate speech. <br /><br />For contrast, consider that Wintery Knight has <a href="http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/greg-koukl-the-new-atheism-old-arguments-new-attitude/#comment-49830" rel="nofollow">written</a>, "Show me an atheist and I’ll show you a person who is unskilled AT LIFE." Is that hate speech against atheists?Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46298226567147370632012-05-31T20:12:20.763-07:002012-05-31T20:12:20.763-07:00Matt wrote:
>I don't think it's some &...Matt wrote:<br /><br />>I don't think it's some "platonic" entity, and I'm operating under the idea that God has either (a) created these laws or (b) is actively suspending those laws. Every Christian has a different story, but my argument holds water for each view.<br /><br />QUOTE"Paley....... take[s] for granted a mechanistic conception of the natural order on which it is devoid of anything like Aristotelian substantial forms or final causes. While they argue that certain natural phenomena are teleological, <b>the teleology in question is understood to be extrinsic or imposed from outside</b> rather than immanent or “built in,”as Aristotelian natures and final causes are.END QUOTE <br />-Edward Feser-Existential Inertia and the Five Ways<br /><br />My comments: Your argument is a non-starter because it presuposes "Laws of Nature" are extrinsic & imposed from the outside by either some gay Paley "god" or simply as mindless brute forces. <br /><br />In the Thomistic view there are no "Laws" to suspend since things behave the way they do because of their intrinsic essences. It is the essence of fire to be hot thus actualize the potental in ice to melt instead of freezing it.<br /><br />A miracle is nothing more then God actualizing a particular potency directly rather then threw a secondary cause.<br /><br />So as I said we aren't even speaking the same language and merely mocking Transubstanciation instead of formulating a philosophical argument as to why it is absurd to have a substance change while leaving it's properties intact or why the essentalist metaphysics on which it rests are wrong or trying to equivocate between Hume and Paley's faulty anti-moderate realist metaphysical view of miracles with Thomism is f***ing lazy and stupid. Much like Dawkins.<br /><br />Sorry but if I deny God tomorow I see no logical reason why given Aristotle's metaphysical modeling of being the idea of transubstanciation is absurd?<br /><br />Quote"Einstein became extremely interested in the concept of transubstantiation, the changing of one substance into another. He asked Father Charlie to explain the conversion in the Eucharist, by the priest at Mass. Father Charlie eagerly explained transubstantiation to his host as analogous to Einstein's famous formula E=MC2: Just as matter can be broken into energy—God becomes present on earth in the Mass."<br /> <br />see here for the story of Fr. Charlie and Einstein<br />http://eucharist-emc2.blogspot.com/2007/08/afternoon-with-einstein.html<br /><br />So even though he didn't believe in it Einstein took it seriously. <br /><br />I can't take Dawkins seriously.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53527143387965302812012-05-31T19:29:46.761-07:002012-05-31T19:29:46.761-07:00Ben -- Thanks for your response.
you wrote:
The...Ben -- Thanks for your response. <br /><br />you wrote:<br /><br /><i>They actually formally invited the Westborow Baptist Church.<br /><br />From an Atheist blog:<br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/13/why-was-the-westboro-baptist-church-invited-to-the-reason-rally/<br /><br />And a Theist Blog:<br />http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/03/the-reason-rally-and-westboro-baptist-church/<br /><br />They didn't invite any mainstream religious groups. They didn't invite any mainstream religious figures or Apologists for debate or dialog.</i><br /><br />So "they" appears to be the "National Atheist Party" or NAP. I'd never even heard of WAP before. What was NAP's role at the Rally? Were they the organizers of the rally? Sponsors? Or, for lack of a better term, merely "exhibitors" (a group who rented a booth)?<br /><br />These distinctions seem relevant to me in order to determine if there is a legitimate analogy between a KKK rally and the Reason Rally.<br /><br /><i>It would have been reasonable to not invite any religious groups and just concentrate on their own message.<br /><br />But they invited a group, the Southern Poverty Legal Center and the ADL classified a hate group. Why?<br /><br />Could it be because this is the message they want to send about religion?<br /><br />These people are how they truly view religion.<br /><br />Like the Klan inviting a minstrel group to one of their functions.<br /><br />It's how they view black people.</i><br /><br />In my experience, most atheists recognize that Westboro Baptist Church is an extremist group, NOT representative of theists in general. <br /><br />For what it is worth, here is NAP's explanation of their motivation for inviting WBC:<br /><br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/14/national-atheist-party-responds-to-criticism-about-inviting-westboro-baptist-church-to-reason-rally/<br /><br />JeffSecular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47882185828216630892012-05-31T18:48:34.074-07:002012-05-31T18:48:34.074-07:00>To get back to the original point: after readi...>To get back to the original point: after reading the transcript of Dawkins's speech, I don't see how it supports the analogy between a KKK rally and a secular one. What am I missing?<br /><br />They actually formally invited the Westborow Baptist Church.<br /><br />From an Atheist blog:<br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/13/why-was-the-westboro-baptist-church-invited-to-the-reason-rally/<br /><br />And a Theist Blog:<br />http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2012/03/the-reason-rally-and-westboro-baptist-church/<br /><br />They didn't invite any mainstream religious groups. They didn't invite any mainstream religious figures or Apologists for debate or dialog.<br /><br />It would have been reasonable to not invite any religious groups and just concentrate on their own message.<br /><br />But they invited a group, the Southern Poverty Legal Center and the ADL classified a hate group. Why?<br /><br />Could it be because this is the message they want to send about religion? <br /><br />These people are how they truly view religion.<br /><br />Like the Klan inviting a minstrel group to one of their functions. <br /><br />It's how they view black people.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15272192403168043352012-05-31T18:34:31.783-07:002012-05-31T18:34:31.783-07:00@Kent
>How is Mass Effect 3?
I haven't p...@Kent<br /><br />>How is Mass Effect 3? <br /><br />I haven't played it yet. Tonight is the night.<br /><br />>I have Mass Effect one and two but I am torn between buying ME3 and Diablo 3 firs<br /><br />I played & finished ME2. I started Playing ME1 & am still in the middle of it. Of course I kinda know how it ends. That is what/who is behind the Geth attacks. I may get back to it.<br /><br />We will see.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91204591050889437292012-05-31T17:47:19.915-07:002012-05-31T17:47:19.915-07:00cl said
"As for transcripts, take your pick....cl said<br /><br />"As for transcripts, take your pick."<br /><br />Fair enough. I chose this <a href="http://ladydifadden.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/transcript-of-richard-dawkins-speech-from-reason-rally-2012/" rel="nofollow">one</a>.<br /><br />Overall, if one does not get offended by atheists talking about atheism in general, I didn't find much in Dawkins's speech which I think might be categorized by people as offensive or hateful. The only thing I found was this:<br /><br />"So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” <i>Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!</i><br />Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits." (italics mine)<br /><br />I agree with Dawkins that it is useful to clarify what people mean when they use words like "Christian." I also agree with Dawkins that religion should not be off the table, but it doesn't follow that mockery and ridicule is the way to discuss religion. I don't agree with Dawkins that publicly mocking or ridiculing religious beliefs is necessarily desirable. <br /><br />For example, I probably would mock someone's belief in a flat earth, since I think that belief is irrational for most people (barring some very limited exceptions). As for the doctrine of the transsubstantion, I think it is false and even absurd and silly. (Yes, if God exists, He by definition <i>could</i> change food and wine into the body and blood of Christ; I just think that is highly improbable even on the assumption that theism is true.) Would I mock someone who believes in that doctrine? Probably not, unless they were in my face about it. <br /><br />To get back to the original point: after reading the transcript of Dawkins's speech, I don't see how it supports the analogy between a KKK rally and a secular one. What am I missing?Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67164104895521266342012-05-31T17:28:57.728-07:002012-05-31T17:28:57.728-07:00Anthony Flemming
Paps, there is a simple point be...Anthony Flemming<br /><i> Paps, there is a simple point being made here. We can all admit that there are Christians that do bad, hate filled, and stupid stuff. Is it a result of Christian belief or perhaps their own eisegesis practice? </i><br /><br />But the issue, Anthony, is not of individual parishioners that is of concern. Much that I have put forward are focussed on the institutionally derived hate stuff singled out to particular groups in the community through no fault of their own, against gays, against lesbians, against women [not only in terms of determining women's personal health issues but also their downright discrimination in their exclusion from attaining higher office in the church, simply on the basis of the longevity of male domination in those roles]. These are all abominably antithetical to the very notion of justice, civility and fairness and ethical behaviour. And not one parishioner should be a willing partner to such decisions that are counter to the communities wishes that the religious organisations supposedly serve.<br /><br />What makes it OK for religious institutions to practice discrimination, inequity, partiality, bigotry and intolerance, all those things that no self-respecting citizen would countenance?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27555953594674986662012-05-31T17:10:31.036-07:002012-05-31T17:10:31.036-07:00Bob
For the sake of argument assume that God exis...Bob<br /><i> For the sake of argument assume that God exists for the remainder of this paragraph. Why, once one believes in a being powerful enough to create planets, stars, and galaxies, who exists both in time and in eternity, who is capable of Himself becoming a little child and living amongst His creation, why is it also so hard to believe that He can transform bread and wine into His own Body and Blood? If this particular belief invites scorn, then every other clause in the Creed should do so as well. Why do you balk at this "specific example"?</i><br /><br />For the very same reason that you would baulk at the belief, that suppose for argument's sake, notwithstanding that almost a billion people believe it so, why Ganesha the god with one tusk 'is widely revered as the Remover of Obstacles and more generally as Lord of Beginnings and Lord of Obstacles' [wiki]. Indeed Ganesha is omni-powerful that he can make and remove anything imaginable.<br /><br />Atheism generally places the anthropocentric omni-max god in the same logic basket as with Ganesha; on the basis there is no evidence to even consider the development of a possible hypothesis. No biblical claim of any significance on the causes for the universe has yet been translated into a working hypothesis that one could pursue.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80837882880705992112012-05-31T17:02:47.440-07:002012-05-31T17:02:47.440-07:00Ben,
How is Mass Effect 3? I have Mass Effect one...Ben,<br /><br />How is Mass Effect 3? I have Mass Effect one and two but I am torn between buying ME3 and Diablo 3 first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85080827479864723542012-05-31T16:56:52.093-07:002012-05-31T16:56:52.093-07:00Now I have to go home.
Mass Effect 3 awaits!Now I have to go home.<br /><br />Mass Effect 3 awaits!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68997897393144752642012-05-31T16:55:29.870-07:002012-05-31T16:55:29.870-07:00>While I don't understand how you attribute...>While I don't understand how you attribute "powers" to things, this is roughly the idea I am operating under as well.<br /><br />Most likely because you never studied Essentialist philosophy.<br /><br />>I'm saying that individual instances of non-uniformity (Jesus walking on water, raising the dead, etc.) are vastly underdetermining for the theist, and shouldn't be regarded as proof of God in any way.<br /><br />I would have to presuppose God to consider if these things are true.<br /><br />I wouldn't use them as Arguments for God. <br /><br />The is not how we Thomist roll.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13698116354205610642012-05-31T16:52:45.561-07:002012-05-31T16:52:45.561-07:00"A "Natural Law" is an observed reg..."A "Natural Law" is an observed regularity in nature. Things have natures or substances that have powers and regularities."<br /><br />While I don't understand how you attribute "powers" to things, this is roughly the idea I am operating under as well. I would probably state it thus: "natural[physical] law is a theoeretical principle derived from particular facts or observations" (a rough quote of the Wiki entry). <br /><br />I don't think it's some "platonic" entity, and I'm operating under the idea that God has either (a) created these laws or (b) is actively suspending those laws. Every Christian has a different story, but my argument holds water for each view.<br /><br />I'm saying that individual instances of non-uniformity (Jesus walking on water, raising the dead, etc.) are vastly underdetermining for the theist, and shouldn't be regarded as proof of God in any way.Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18372435916921175692012-05-31T16:52:25.644-07:002012-05-31T16:52:25.644-07:00The some[body] here refers to "somebody who c...<i>The some[body] here refers to "somebody who claims to be religious". Dawkins doesn't say "ridicule some[body]! Mock some[body]". Again, we can see him reiterate his point here:<br /><br />"Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated and need to be challenged and, if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt."<br /><br />The fact that you misused/misread the term "them" tells me that you'll want to read what you want to read, no matter what I explain. So, keep on keeping on!</i><br /><br />http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/26/149310560/atheist-firebrand-richard-dawkins-unrepentant-for-harsh-words-targeting-faith<br /><br /><i>On his blog last year, Dawkins called a person named Minor Vidal a "fool" for his expression of thanks to God after surviving a deadly plane crash. (To be fair, Dawkins called "billions" of other people fools, too, in the same post.)<br /><br />Dawkins told me that if he insulted any person, he regrets it. But this example shows how hard it is, in practice rather than theory, to aim harsh language only at a person's belief, and not at the person.<br /><br />Another example comes from Saturday's rally. There, Dawkins noted his incredulity when meeting people who believe a Communion wafer turns into the body of Christ during the Eucharist. He then urged his followers to "mock" and "ridicule" that. (He says this 13 minutes into the video, though it's best to watch the whole thing.) His exact words after describing the Catholic ritual, were "Mock them. Ridicule them." So by "them" did he intend to refer to Catholic beliefs, not Catholic people? In context, it doesn't seem so to me.</i><br /><br />So, yes; clearly, we're all intellectual dishonest people who are putting words in Dawkins's mouth.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.com