All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
But the same goes for irreligious people as well. Communists aren't exactly known for tolerating people when in power, and they're not exactly religious in general.
Pat makes the case very concisely for those of us who are atheist, though some of you won't believe it. Blasphemy laws do strike at the very core of our being, the way we actually experience reality, and threaten us with harm or death unless we bow our heads to somebody else's preferred "reality". I'm grateful to him for that.
And it's heartening to hear from a European how important our Constitution and First Amendment are to the rest of Western Civilization. He's right -- if we let that go, then the rest is lost, and Obama would love to serve it up to the UN on a platter like somebody's severed head.
I wonder if he has any idea what will happen if he actually tries it here. If he thinks Tea Parties and FOX News are trouble...
Nice to hear from you and I do agree with you. In particular we should never let go of the first amendment. Its one of the few things standing between us and what's going on in Europe right now.
It always makes me feel a bit better to watch one of Condell's videos. The people who will save this situation, if it can be saved, are the ones who understand absolutely what is at stake and will not risk the outcome by trying to play nice with the enemy. Condell is one of those people.
Something I observed Robert Spencer doing during the Bary hearings in Florida also struck a note with me. Robert makes a point of explicitly informing that CAIR jerk on camera that he is not afraid of him. At first I thought it sounded a bit odd. But then I realized that in confrontations with Islamists it is especially important not to appear uncertain or as if you're trying to be conciliatory, because that is taken as a sign of submission. Peaceful Muslims can be reassured that their rights will be protected. With Islamists, however, you have to do whatever it takes to establish that under no circumstances will you compromise your principles or back down to threats, that you are in control of the situation and they are not.
Most people are going to have to learn that the hard way.
I for one thing don't support any anti Blasphemy laws and I never have. They go against our most cherished ideals, and how no benefit at all. If one belief system can not survive sustained criticism, religious or otherwise, its not one worth defending in the first place.
By the way, RRA, one thing you aren't getting is Condell is being ironic in this video.
When he says, To claim that He (God) does exist is, of course, extremely offensive to those of us who believe otherwise. It's a grave insult to our most deeply cherished beliefs, and an assault on the very core of our being. And, a violation, therefore, of our human rights, isn't it? Well, isn't it?"
His point is this is what Muslims claim all the time, that is one insults their religion their human rights have been violated.
He is not saying that if one is offended by someone else's statements of their beliefs that their right have indeed been violated.
He follows it up by saying, "Now all this would be nothing but a tiresome joke, were it not for the fact that this nonsense is beginning to have a real effect on our basic freedoms."
Fercyinoutloud yes I do understand irony and I didn't respond because I was tired and I went to bed.
Of course Condell was being ironic, his whole point is that it's irrelevant if someone's "feelings" are hurt by free speech because the freedom to speak our minds is a right. To be protected from feeling insulted is not a "right".
He expressed it in his own terms as an atheist because it does sound so "ironic" for one of "us" to say such things. Well, doesn't it?
And where exactly did I say anyone here wants blasphemy laws?
I do seem to recall, however, some months ago someone asking me to apologize for categorically stating there is not a god.
Fercyinoutloud yes I do understand irony and I didn't respond because I was tired and I went to bed.
Of course Condell was being ironic, his whole point is that it's irrelevant if someone's "feelings" are hurt by free speech because the freedom to speak our minds is a right. To be protected from feeling insulted is not a "right".
He expressed it in his own terms as an atheist because it does sound so "ironic" for one of "us" to say such things. Well, doesn't it?
And where exactly did I say anyone here wants blasphemy laws?
I do seem to recall, however, some months ago someone asking me to apologize for categorically stating there is not a god.
RRA, You said: And where exactly did I say anyone here wants blasphemy laws?
I say: What was this comment supposed to mean: "Pat makes the case very concisely for those of us who are atheist, though some of you won't believe it. Blasphemy laws do strike at the very core of our being, the way we actually experience reality, and threaten us with harm or death unless we bow our heads to somebody else's preferred "reality". I'm grateful to him for that."
I say: That makes it sound like atheists have some sort of innate better understanding of the offensiveness of blashpehmy laws.
I, as a Christian, have been arguing for years that Freedom is the first principle because their can be no virtue without Freedom.
Our Country was Founded by people who, for the most part, believed the same thing. Abe Lincoln believed this and carried on the tradition, as have many of the other greats of our country.
And, of masthead proclaims it loud and clear: All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
RRA, You said: He expressed it in his own terms as an atheist because it does sound so "ironic" for one of "us" to say such things. Well, doesn't it?
I say: No, I fail to see how it is more ironic for an atheist to say such a thing than for a Christian or a Jew, or any other believer.
In fact, I think it is a betrayal of your bias against anyone who believes in God that you would state that it is more ironic for an atheist to say such a thing.
Look, you can believe all of us Christians are Taliban-like thugs, just waiting for the right man to come in and give us the power we need.
However, if that is what you happened to believe, it would fly in the face of the reality you experience around here, and that is what I'm trying to get you to admit.
The argument over apologizing for declaring there is no god happened in late 2008, when you stated that Dawkins and Hitchens were intellectually wrong for stating their atheism as truth and not another form of faith and therefore owed believers an apology because their argument was intellectually flawed. I disagreed, as did Bosch Fawstin. However, the argument wound up turning on the issue of whether or not it is right to try to force someone to believe or not in god, which of course, as we all agreed, it is not. That is our assumption on IBA. I do not question that. I do not believe anyone here would try to force me to make a statement of "faith" even if they could, or hesitate to defend my right not to believe.
I was simply pointing out, and if you will note above I was responding to Damien who didn't get upset (thanks, D) that while Pat Condell was doing an excellent job of showing the absurdity of the Muslims' claim that their "human rights" are violated by criticism, part of the irony was the shock value of hearing an atheist say it. Which is part of why Condell used it, to show how absurd it is.
RRA, Now I understand what you are talking about, at the very least.
You said: The argument over apologizing for declaring there is no god happened in late 2008, when you stated that Dawkins and Hitchens were intellectually wrong for stating their atheism as truth and not another form of faith and therefore owed believers an apology because their argument was intellectually flawed.
I say: I have a hard time believing I asked for an apology for such a thing, unless it was in the context of their being personally insulting to people of faith categorically.
I stand by my contention that Absolutist Atheism is intellectually untenable.
Why?
Because logic tells us one can not prove a negative.
So, how can it be logical to think one knows, without question, that there is no God, and therefore, any one who believes in God is a fool.
Do you understand that it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
You know, I did not go to college and study religion, Philosophy, and Psychology for nothing, RRA. I'm not an idiot you are arguing with here.
My problem with you is that you continue to drop intellectual bombs and then not respond to my responses to you.
In this case, you are responding and I appreciate that.
Now, let's see what your response is to my point about logic.
You said: I was responding to Damien who didn't get upset (thanks, D) that while Pat Condell was doing an excellent job of showing the absurdity of the Muslims' claim that their "human rights" are violated by criticism, part of the irony was the shock value of hearing an atheist say it. Which is part of why Condell used it, to show how absurd it is.
I say: I fail to see why it is shocking to hear an atheist make such an argument. He is being logical. Both believers and non-believers are capable of being logical and reasonable.
Go ahead and ask Condell what he meant.
Why, though, do you suddenly think he meant something other than what I said?
Yes I do understand that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Do you understand that this does not mean that reality is a free-for-all in which absolutely anything "can" exist because nobody can ever prove that what doesn't exist doesn't exist?
A god has to be part of the "supernatural" which means a dimension above and beyond nature, because if gods were part of nature it could be proven that they exist.
But according to your reasoning you are free to imagine that your god is out there in some given or even "unknowable" form and I have to concede that it is possible because I can't point to it and say, see, it isn't there. But you are not required to say, I believe in this and here it is, I can prove to you that it exists so you haven't a leg to stand on if you deny it doesn't. Which would, of course, be true and valid.
Somebody asked Rand once what she'd do if Jesus and the 12 apostles walked into the room, and she said, "I'd say, 'Gentlemen, I was mistaken'". Nobody ever took her up on it.
I will try emailing Condell though I expect he's awash in email. I think one point he was making sort of peripherally is that telling someone they must believe that a god is possible without proof or evidence cuts at the core of their being. Which does not mean it should be forbidden, it's just an observation.
RRA, You said: But you are not required to say, I believe in this and here it is, I can prove to you that it exists so you haven't a leg to stand on if you deny it doesn't.
I say: I concede that point. Of course that is true.
Problem is, to say that everyone who believes in God is a fool is to say that 80-90% or more of human beings are fools, including some of the most intelligent minds of our time, and of all time.
And, you're going to take responsibility for making such a judgement?
Wowza. You must be like the madman in the marketplace, huh? If you know the Nietzsche reference. (It's from the famous "God is dead" speech, which I happen to think is brilliant).
The amazing and fallacius thing about Dawkins is that he wants to take the Descriptive aspect of Science and discuss the world as if the Scientific Method and Science itself were a Prescriptive Ideology/Philosophy or some sort. That is absurd.
Listen, as far as I know, there are two hard sciences, mathematics and logic. All other sciences turn on ever-changing theories which are being refined as we all come to a better understanding that we're all touching a great big elephant.
I believe that within the next 20-30 years, DNA-based Medicine will also become a hard science with the advent of Biotechnological development.
Until then, we're left with math and logic. And Logic, honestly, can hardly be called a science, because while it refers to rules which are absolutely true, it is still practiced in words, and words are inherently imprecise.
I have no problem with Atheism. I only have a problem with Absolutist Atheists like Dawkins.
By the way, have you ever seen Dawkins explanation of where mankind may have originated; from Space Aliens.
That beggars the childs question, "Well then, who created the Space Aliens? Who created God?"
It's like the man didn't even have the Philosophical sophistication to have realized that.
Amazing. And, this is the guy who is going to pronounce all believing human beings to be fools?
OK, this is not a discussion, it is now a numbers game replete with non-sequitors about Dawkins and Space Aliens (like I never heard that one before), and I don't care how many people don't agree with me. Right now I'm trying to process the discovery that Greta van Susteren, who I had thought was a reasonably sane woman, is a Scientologist which means she thinks we're all engineered by Space Aliens too and by the way, just how do you prove it isn't so since no one can prove a negative? And I am not going to go stick my head in Mt. Kiluaea to look for the Thetans.
And I'm calling retreat on this for my own sanity. I'm serious about this. The contention that because a negative cannot be proven translates to "anything is possible and if 80-90% of people believe it who are you to argue" translates for me existentially as "there is no reality there is just everyone's fantasy and you can't really be sure of anything". That may not be what you think you mean, but it is what I hear. And that is what I have been trying to explain for weeks now. Well, I've failed to do that so I'm giving up the effort and shutting up about being an atheist because I do know that it is true that beating your head against a wall feels really good when it stops.
You said: this is not a discussion, it is now a numbers game replete with non-sequitors about Dawkins and Space Aliens
I say: I hardly think it is a non sequitor. My point is Dawkins is unreasonable.
1) His argument that the Descriptive process of the Scientific Method has a Prescriptive function in the world of ideology is unreasonable.
2) His argument that anyone who believes in god is foolish, because you can't prove God exists is unreasonable.
and
3) His argument that space aliens probably seeded Earth is unreasonable for a variety of reason, not the least of which is that it beggars the child's question, "well then, who made God?"
These are not non-sequitors within the context of this conversation. They are my examples that the leader of this whole movement that believers are narrow-minded idiots is a foolish man himself.
You said: we're all engineered by Space Aliens too and by the way, just how do you prove it isn't so since no one can prove a negative?
I say: You can't. That's the point.
;-)
You say: And I'm calling retreat on this for my own sanity. I'm serious about this. The contention that because a negative cannot be proven translates to "anything is possible and if 80-90% of people believe it who are you to argue" translates for me existentially as "there is no reality there is just everyone's fantasy and you can't really be sure of anything".
I say: There is truth to what you say here.
But, there are other ideas that we have faith in in our society which don't make any sense, and yet we go along with them because they make us feel good.
We believe in Love. We believe that family will make us a better person. We believe it is a good thing to help someone less fortunate than ourselves. We believe that it is a good thing to stand against the anti-Semitic herd and say, "Never Again."
None of those things are beneficial. And, in fact, these things are dropped when the going gets tough. They are only good ideas when it is economically affordable for them to be so, or at least that is true 95% of the time.
And yet, we know in our hearts that they are true, even when they are not economically affordable.
Damien said... In particular we should never let go of the first amendment. Its one of the few things standing between us and what's going on in Europe right now.
You're Welcome Pastorius!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I don't entirely share his sentiment, since I'm not an atheist, but I agree with almost all of what he says in the video.
ReplyDeletePat Condell. Although I'm no Atheist, I agree with most of his messages.
ReplyDeleteAll I care is that religious people should stop forcing their views upon everyone else.
Mah29001,
ReplyDeleteI'm in complete agreement with you on that.
Mah29001,
ReplyDeleteBut the same goes for irreligious people as well. Communists aren't exactly known for tolerating people when in power, and they're not exactly religious in general.
Pat makes the case very concisely for those of us who are atheist, though some of you won't believe it. Blasphemy laws do strike at the very core of our being, the way we actually experience reality, and threaten us with harm or death unless we bow our heads to somebody else's preferred "reality". I'm grateful to him for that.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's heartening to hear from a European how important our Constitution and First Amendment are to the rest of Western Civilization. He's right -- if we let that go, then the rest is lost, and Obama would love to serve it up to the UN on a platter like somebody's severed head.
I wonder if he has any idea what will happen if he actually tries it here. If he thinks Tea Parties and FOX News are trouble...
Revere Rides Again,
ReplyDeleteYou are one of the people who I knew when I first saw the video would like it.
Revere Rides Again,
ReplyDeleteNice to hear from you and I do agree with you. In particular we should never let go of the first amendment. Its one of the few things standing between us and what's going on in Europe right now.
It always makes me feel a bit better to watch one of Condell's videos. The people who will save this situation, if it can be saved, are the ones who understand absolutely what is at stake and will not risk the outcome by trying to play nice with the enemy. Condell is one of those people.
ReplyDeleteSomething I observed Robert Spencer doing during the Bary hearings in Florida also struck a note with me. Robert makes a point of explicitly informing that CAIR jerk on camera that he is not afraid of him. At first I thought it sounded a bit odd. But then I realized that in confrontations with Islamists it is especially important not to appear uncertain or as if you're trying to be conciliatory, because that is taken as a sign of submission. Peaceful Muslims can be reassured that their rights will be protected. With Islamists, however, you have to do whatever it takes to establish that under no circumstances will you compromise your principles or back down to threats, that you are in control of the situation and they are not.
Most people are going to have to learn that the hard way.
RRA,
ReplyDeleteYou said: Blasphemy laws do strike at the very core of our being
I say: I don't think anyone hear supports Blasphemy laws.
Did you think we did?
Did you have anything to support that idea, if so?
Pastorius,
ReplyDeleteI for one thing don't support any anti Blasphemy laws and I never have. They go against our most cherished ideals, and how no benefit at all. If one belief system can not survive sustained criticism, religious or otherwise, its not one worth defending in the first place.
Revere Rides Again,
ReplyDeleteBy the way. I found something I think you would like to see. Its not related to this through.
Sadly, RRA always comes around and drops these bombs and then never answers my responses to her.
ReplyDeleteI find that to be rude.
I put time and thought into formulating my responses, and I ask her reasonable questions.
In this case, does she have any evidence that any of us at this site support anti-blasphemy laws?
Is she going to answer the question, or is this just going to be another bigoted bomb drop from RRA?
By the way, RRA, one thing you aren't getting is Condell is being ironic in this video.
ReplyDeleteWhen he says, To claim that He (God) does exist is, of course, extremely offensive to those of us who believe otherwise. It's a grave insult to our most deeply cherished beliefs, and an assault on the very core of our being. And, a violation, therefore, of our human rights, isn't it? Well, isn't it?"
His point is this is what Muslims claim all the time, that is one insults their religion their human rights have been violated.
He is not saying that if one is offended by someone else's statements of their beliefs that their right have indeed been violated.
He follows it up by saying, "Now all this would be nothing but a tiresome joke, were it not for the fact that this nonsense is beginning to have a real effect on our basic freedoms."
See, it is satire. Irony.
You, apparently, did not get the joke.
Pastorius,
ReplyDeleteCome to think of it you maybe right. I didn't realize he was being ironic. I have trouble with irony sometimes.
Irony, it's a Brit thing, that most Americans have trouble with, although Pasto is fine tuned to it, probabloy due to his Brit family connections.
ReplyDeleteFercyinoutloud yes I do understand irony and I didn't respond because I was tired and I went to bed.
ReplyDeleteOf course Condell was being ironic, his whole point is that it's irrelevant if someone's "feelings" are hurt by free speech because the freedom to speak our minds is a right. To be protected from feeling insulted is not a "right".
He expressed it in his own terms as an atheist because it does sound so "ironic" for one of "us" to say such things. Well, doesn't it?
And where exactly did I say anyone here wants blasphemy laws?
I do seem to recall, however, some months ago someone asking me to apologize for categorically stating there is not a god.
Fercyinoutloud yes I do understand irony and I didn't respond because I was tired and I went to bed.
ReplyDeleteOf course Condell was being ironic, his whole point is that it's irrelevant if someone's "feelings" are hurt by free speech because the freedom to speak our minds is a right. To be protected from feeling insulted is not a "right".
He expressed it in his own terms as an atheist because it does sound so "ironic" for one of "us" to say such things. Well, doesn't it?
And where exactly did I say anyone here wants blasphemy laws?
I do seem to recall, however, some months ago someone asking me to apologize for categorically stating there is not a god.
RRA,
ReplyDeleteYou said: And where exactly did I say anyone here wants blasphemy laws?
I say: What was this comment supposed to mean: "Pat makes the case very concisely for those of us who are atheist, though some of you won't believe it. Blasphemy laws do strike at the very core of our being, the way we actually experience reality, and threaten us with harm or death unless we bow our heads to somebody else's preferred "reality". I'm grateful to him for that."
I say: That makes it sound like atheists have some sort of innate better understanding of the offensiveness of blashpehmy laws.
I, as a Christian, have been arguing for years that Freedom is the first principle because their can be no virtue without Freedom.
Our Country was Founded by people who, for the most part, believed the same thing. Abe Lincoln believed this and carried on the tradition, as have many of the other greats of our country.
And, of masthead proclaims it loud and clear: All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same inalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
RRA,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
I do seem to recall, however, some months ago someone asking me to apologize for categorically stating there is not a god.
I say: Oh yeah? Was that person a contributor, or a commenter?
We don't censor comments here.
Why? Because we believe people ought to have the freedom to say what they believe, even if it is stupid or offensive.
RRA,
ReplyDeleteYou said: He expressed it in his own terms as an atheist because it does sound so "ironic" for one of "us" to say such things. Well, doesn't it?
I say: No, I fail to see how it is more ironic for an atheist to say such a thing than for a Christian or a Jew, or any other believer.
In fact, I think it is a betrayal of your bias against anyone who believes in God that you would state that it is more ironic for an atheist to say such a thing.
Look, you can believe all of us Christians are Taliban-like thugs, just waiting for the right man to come in and give us the power we need.
However, if that is what you happened to believe, it would fly in the face of the reality you experience around here, and that is what I'm trying to get you to admit.
The argument over apologizing for declaring there is no god happened in late 2008, when you stated that Dawkins and Hitchens were intellectually wrong for stating their atheism as truth and not another form of faith and therefore owed believers an apology because their argument was intellectually flawed. I disagreed, as did Bosch Fawstin. However, the argument wound up turning on the issue of whether or not it is right to try to force someone to believe or not in god, which of course, as we all agreed, it is not. That is our assumption on IBA. I do not question that. I do not believe anyone here would try to force me to make a statement of "faith" even if they could, or hesitate to defend my right not to believe.
ReplyDeleteI was simply pointing out, and if you will note above I was responding to Damien who didn't get upset (thanks, D) that while Pat Condell was doing an excellent job of showing the absurdity of the Muslims' claim that their "human rights" are violated by criticism, part of the irony was the shock value of hearing an atheist say it. Which is part of why Condell used it, to show how absurd it is.
Come to think of it, is there any way we can ask Condell what he meant?
ReplyDeleteRevere Rides Again,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to ask him something, you could just email him.
RRA,
ReplyDeleteNow I understand what you are talking about, at the very least.
You said: The argument over apologizing for declaring there is no god happened in late 2008, when you stated that Dawkins and Hitchens were intellectually wrong for stating their atheism as truth and not another form of faith and therefore owed believers an apology because their argument was intellectually flawed.
I say: I have a hard time believing I asked for an apology for such a thing, unless it was in the context of their being personally insulting to people of faith categorically.
I stand by my contention that Absolutist Atheism is intellectually untenable.
Why?
Because logic tells us one can not prove a negative.
So, how can it be logical to think one knows, without question, that there is no God, and therefore, any one who believes in God is a fool.
Do you understand that it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
You know, I did not go to college and study religion, Philosophy, and Psychology for nothing, RRA. I'm not an idiot you are arguing with here.
My problem with you is that you continue to drop intellectual bombs and then not respond to my responses to you.
In this case, you are responding and I appreciate that.
Now, let's see what your response is to my point about logic.
You said: I was responding to Damien who didn't get upset (thanks, D) that while Pat Condell was doing an excellent job of showing the absurdity of the Muslims' claim that their "human rights" are violated by criticism, part of the irony was the shock value of hearing an atheist say it. Which is part of why Condell used it, to show how absurd it is.
I say: I fail to see why it is shocking to hear an atheist make such an argument. He is being logical. Both believers and non-believers are capable of being logical and reasonable.
Go ahead and ask Condell what he meant.
Why, though, do you suddenly think he meant something other than what I said?
;-)
Yes I do understand that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Do you understand that this does not mean that reality is a free-for-all in which absolutely anything "can" exist because nobody can ever prove that what doesn't exist doesn't exist?
ReplyDeleteA god has to be part of the "supernatural" which means a dimension above and beyond nature, because if gods were part of nature it could be proven that they exist.
But according to your reasoning you are free to imagine that your god is out there in some given or even "unknowable" form and I have to concede that it is possible because I can't point to it and say, see, it isn't there. But you are not required to say, I believe in this and here it is, I can prove to you that it exists so you haven't a leg to stand on if you deny it doesn't. Which would, of course, be true and valid.
Somebody asked Rand once what she'd do if Jesus and the 12 apostles walked into the room, and she said, "I'd say, 'Gentlemen, I was mistaken'". Nobody ever took her up on it.
I will try emailing Condell though I expect he's awash in email. I think one point he was making sort of peripherally is that telling someone they must believe that a god is possible without proof or evidence cuts at the core of their being. Which does not mean it should be forbidden, it's just an observation.
OK, I emailed Pat but don't anyone get your hopes up because he says he's getting "hundreds" of emails a day. Now you know why I don't blog.
ReplyDeleteRRA,
ReplyDeleteYou said: But you are not required to say, I believe in this and here it is, I can prove to you that it exists so you haven't a leg to stand on if you deny it doesn't.
I say: I concede that point. Of course that is true.
Problem is, to say that everyone who believes in God is a fool is to say that 80-90% or more of human beings are fools, including some of the most intelligent minds of our time, and of all time.
And, you're going to take responsibility for making such a judgement?
Wowza. You must be like the madman in the marketplace, huh? If you know the Nietzsche reference. (It's from the famous "God is dead" speech, which I happen to think is brilliant).
The amazing and fallacius thing about Dawkins is that he wants to take the Descriptive aspect of Science and discuss the world as if the Scientific Method and Science itself were a Prescriptive Ideology/Philosophy or some sort. That is absurd.
Listen, as far as I know, there are two hard sciences, mathematics and logic. All other sciences turn on ever-changing theories which are being refined as we all come to a better understanding that we're all touching a great big elephant.
I believe that within the next 20-30 years, DNA-based Medicine will also become a hard science with the advent of Biotechnological development.
Until then, we're left with math and logic. And Logic, honestly, can hardly be called a science, because while it refers to rules which are absolutely true, it is still practiced in words, and words are inherently imprecise.
I have no problem with Atheism. I only have a problem with Absolutist Atheists like Dawkins.
By the way, have you ever seen Dawkins explanation of where mankind may have originated; from Space Aliens.
That beggars the childs question, "Well then, who created the Space Aliens? Who created God?"
It's like the man didn't even have the Philosophical sophistication to have realized that.
Amazing. And, this is the guy who is going to pronounce all believing human beings to be fools?
OK, this is not a discussion, it is now a numbers game replete with non-sequitors about Dawkins and Space Aliens (like I never heard that one before), and I don't care how many people don't agree with me. Right now I'm trying to process the discovery that Greta van Susteren, who I had thought was a reasonably sane woman, is a Scientologist which means she thinks we're all engineered by Space Aliens too and by the way, just how do you prove it isn't so since no one can prove a negative? And I am not going to go stick my head in Mt. Kiluaea to look for the Thetans.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm calling retreat on this for my own sanity. I'm serious about this. The contention that because a negative cannot be proven translates to "anything is possible and if 80-90% of people believe it who are you to argue" translates for me existentially as "there is no reality there is just everyone's fantasy and you can't really be sure of anything". That may not be what you think you mean, but it is what I hear. And that is what I have been trying to explain for weeks now. Well, I've failed to do that so I'm giving up the effort and shutting up about being an atheist because I do know that it is true that beating your head against a wall feels really good when it stops.
Towel. Officially. Thrown. In.
Back to fighting the jihad.
RRA,
ReplyDeleteYou said: Towel. Officially. Thrown. In.
I say: Well shoot, then. How am I ever going win?
;-)
You said: this is not a discussion, it is now a numbers game replete with non-sequitors about Dawkins and Space Aliens
I say: I hardly think it is a non sequitor. My point is Dawkins is unreasonable.
1) His argument that the Descriptive process of the Scientific Method has a Prescriptive function in the world of ideology is unreasonable.
2) His argument that anyone who believes in god is foolish, because you can't prove God exists is unreasonable.
and
3) His argument that space aliens probably seeded Earth is unreasonable for a variety of reason, not the least of which is that it beggars the child's question, "well then, who made God?"
These are not non-sequitors within the context of this conversation. They are my examples that the leader of this whole movement that believers are narrow-minded idiots is a foolish man himself.
You said: we're all engineered by Space Aliens too and by the way, just how do you prove it isn't so since no one can prove a negative?
I say: You can't. That's the point.
;-)
You say: And I'm calling retreat on this for my own sanity. I'm serious about this. The contention that because a negative cannot be proven translates to "anything is possible and if 80-90% of people believe it who are you to argue" translates for me existentially as "there is no reality there is just everyone's fantasy and you can't really be sure of anything".
I say: There is truth to what you say here.
But, there are other ideas that we have faith in in our society which don't make any sense, and yet we go along with them because they make us feel good.
We believe in Love. We believe that family will make us a better person. We believe it is a good thing to help someone less fortunate than ourselves. We believe that it is a good thing to stand against the anti-Semitic herd and say, "Never Again."
None of those things are beneficial. And, in fact, these things are dropped when the going gets tough. They are only good ideas when it is economically affordable for them to be so, or at least that is true 95% of the time.
And yet, we know in our hearts that they are true, even when they are not economically affordable.
Damien said...
ReplyDeleteIn particular we should never let go of the first amendment. Its one of the few things standing between us and what's going on in Europe right now.
exactly.
signed,
european