Print
Holiday in Hellmouth
by The New Yorker
Thanks to Arthur Sanford for the link.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/06/09/080609crbo_books_wood/?currentPage=all
Holiday in Hellmouth
God may be dead, but the question of why he permits suffering lives on.
by James Wood
Nietzsche said that if a human being put his ear to the heart chamber of the world and heard the roar of existence, the "innumerable shouts of pleasure and woe," he would surely break into pieces. But a newspaper, pumping its inky current of despair, might serve as well. On a single day, Thursday, May 15th, the Times contained the following. The lead article was about the earthquake in China, now estimated to have killed more than fifty thousand people. It was titled "Tiny Bodies in a Morgue, and Unspeakable Grief in China," and was accompanied by a photograph of two parents sitting next to their dead child. A story about the recent cyclone in Myanmar estimated the number of deaths at anywhere between 68,833 and 127,990. The journalist mentioned a man named Zaw Ayea, twenty-seven, who found his sister's body; his mother and two younger brothers are missing. He cannot speak: "He stares straight ahead with a strangely placid expression on his face. His friends say he has been in shock since the cyclone."
And the minor stories, on this day? At least ten people killed in a bomb attack west of Baghdad, in Abu Ghraib; a policeman killed in a bomb attack in northern Spain (probably ETA terrorists); a possible missile strike on a Pakistani border village that killed about a dozen people (this may well have been the work of an American drone); and a piece about a radical Islamic cleric, resident in Italy but "transferred," perhaps thanks to American help, by the process of "extraordinary rendition," to a jail in Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured. His wife told an Italian court, "He was tied up like he was being crucified. He was beat up, especially around his ears. He was subjected to electroshocks to many body parts."
Image subtitle: Christianity needs the concept of heaven simply to make sense of human suffering.
A large proportion of life involves our refusing to put our ear to the mundane heart chamber, lest we die from hearing "the roar which lies on the other side of silence." It is considered almost gauche to wave the flag of general suffering in other people's faces, as Dostoyevsky does repeatedly in his novels, most famously in "The Brothers Karamazov," when the rebellious Ivan confronts his pious brother Alyosha with a list of degradations, some of which Dostoyevsky had got from real accounts—Turkish soldiers tossing babies on their bayonets in front of the mothers, parents punishing their five-year-old girl for wetting her bed by locking her all night in a freezing outhouse and smearing her face with excrement.
For the lucky few, there is reason to hope that life will be a business of evenly rationed suffering: stern parents perhaps, a few humiliations at school, then a love affair or two gone wrong, maybe a marriage broken. Our parents will die, and farther off, ideally deferred, will come our own steady demise. Plenty of suffering for a life, certainly, but most of us subsist on the plausible expectation that fortune will draw a circle around that personal portion, and that the truly unbearable—murder, rape, dead children, torture, war—will remain outside the cordon. Norman Rush, in his novel "Mortals," calls this "hellmouth": "the opening up of the mouth of hell right in front of you, without warning, through no fault of your own." Without warning, and yet always feared. Job, whom God places into hellmouth to test him, knew that paradox: "For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me."
Theologians and philosophers talk about "the problem of evil," and the hygienic phrase itself bespeaks a certain distance from extreme suffering, the view from a life inside the charmed circle. They mean the classic difficulty of how we justify the existence of suffering and iniquity with belief in a God who created us, who loves us, and who providentially manages the world. The term for this justification is "theodicy," which nowadays seems a very old-fashioned exercise in turning around and around the stripped screw of theological scholastics. Still, if polls are correct, about eighty per cent of Americans ought to be engaged in such antiquarianism. Union University, in Jackson, Tennessee, might profit from intense classes in theodicy. "God protected this campus," one of the students there said, because no one was killed in the tornadoes that devastated parts of Tennessee on February 5th. Since ordinary Tennesseans were killed elsewhere that night, the logic of such shamanism is that God either did not or could not protect those unfortunates from something that the state's governor once likened to "the wrath of God."
Antique and abstract it may be, but thinking about theodicy still has the power to change lives. I know this, because it was how I began to separate myself from the somewhat austere Christian environment I grew up in. I remember the day, in my late teens, when I drew a line down the middle of a piece of paper, on one side of which I wrote my reasons for belief in God, on the other my reasons against. I can't remember the order of my negatives now, but the inefficacy of prayer was likely at the top. Here was a demonstrable case of promises made (if you have faith, you can move a mountain) but not kept (the mountain not only stays put but suddenly erupts and consumes a few villages). During my teens, two members of my parents' congregation died of cancer, despite all the prayers offered up on their behalf. When I looked at the congregants kneeling on cushions, their heads bent to touch the wooden pews, it seemed to me as if they were literally butting their heads against a palpable impossibility. And this was years before I discovered Samuel Butler's image for the inutility of prayer in his novel "The Way of All Flesh"—the bee that has strayed into a drawing room and is buzzing against the wallpaper, trying to extract nectar from one of the painted roses.
Click here to continue the article:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/06/09/080609crbo_books_wood/?currentPage=all
ILLUSTRATION: BRUCE ERIC KAPLAN
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/06/09/080609crbo_books_wood/?currentPage=all
Holiday in Hellmouth
God may be dead, but the question of why he permits suffering lives on.
by James Wood
Nietzsche said that if a human being put his ear to the heart chamber of the world and heard the roar of existence, the "innumerable shouts of pleasure and woe," he would surely break into pieces. But a newspaper, pumping its inky current of despair, might serve as well. On a single day, Thursday, May 15th, the Times contained the following. The lead article was about the earthquake in China, now estimated to have killed more than fifty thousand people. It was titled "Tiny Bodies in a Morgue, and Unspeakable Grief in China," and was accompanied by a photograph of two parents sitting next to their dead child. A story about the recent cyclone in Myanmar estimated the number of deaths at anywhere between 68,833 and 127,990. The journalist mentioned a man named Zaw Ayea, twenty-seven, who found his sister's body; his mother and two younger brothers are missing. He cannot speak: "He stares straight ahead with a strangely placid expression on his face. His friends say he has been in shock since the cyclone."
And the minor stories, on this day? At least ten people killed in a bomb attack west of Baghdad, in Abu Ghraib; a policeman killed in a bomb attack in northern Spain (probably ETA terrorists); a possible missile strike on a Pakistani border village that killed about a dozen people (this may well have been the work of an American drone); and a piece about a radical Islamic cleric, resident in Italy but "transferred," perhaps thanks to American help, by the process of "extraordinary rendition," to a jail in Egypt, where he was allegedly tortured. His wife told an Italian court, "He was tied up like he was being crucified. He was beat up, especially around his ears. He was subjected to electroshocks to many body parts."
Image subtitle: Christianity needs the concept of heaven simply to make sense of human suffering.
A large proportion of life involves our refusing to put our ear to the mundane heart chamber, lest we die from hearing "the roar which lies on the other side of silence." It is considered almost gauche to wave the flag of general suffering in other people's faces, as Dostoyevsky does repeatedly in his novels, most famously in "The Brothers Karamazov," when the rebellious Ivan confronts his pious brother Alyosha with a list of degradations, some of which Dostoyevsky had got from real accounts—Turkish soldiers tossing babies on their bayonets in front of the mothers, parents punishing their five-year-old girl for wetting her bed by locking her all night in a freezing outhouse and smearing her face with excrement.
For the lucky few, there is reason to hope that life will be a business of evenly rationed suffering: stern parents perhaps, a few humiliations at school, then a love affair or two gone wrong, maybe a marriage broken. Our parents will die, and farther off, ideally deferred, will come our own steady demise. Plenty of suffering for a life, certainly, but most of us subsist on the plausible expectation that fortune will draw a circle around that personal portion, and that the truly unbearable—murder, rape, dead children, torture, war—will remain outside the cordon. Norman Rush, in his novel "Mortals," calls this "hellmouth": "the opening up of the mouth of hell right in front of you, without warning, through no fault of your own." Without warning, and yet always feared. Job, whom God places into hellmouth to test him, knew that paradox: "For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me."
Theologians and philosophers talk about "the problem of evil," and the hygienic phrase itself bespeaks a certain distance from extreme suffering, the view from a life inside the charmed circle. They mean the classic difficulty of how we justify the existence of suffering and iniquity with belief in a God who created us, who loves us, and who providentially manages the world. The term for this justification is "theodicy," which nowadays seems a very old-fashioned exercise in turning around and around the stripped screw of theological scholastics. Still, if polls are correct, about eighty per cent of Americans ought to be engaged in such antiquarianism. Union University, in Jackson, Tennessee, might profit from intense classes in theodicy. "God protected this campus," one of the students there said, because no one was killed in the tornadoes that devastated parts of Tennessee on February 5th. Since ordinary Tennesseans were killed elsewhere that night, the logic of such shamanism is that God either did not or could not protect those unfortunates from something that the state's governor once likened to "the wrath of God."
Antique and abstract it may be, but thinking about theodicy still has the power to change lives. I know this, because it was how I began to separate myself from the somewhat austere Christian environment I grew up in. I remember the day, in my late teens, when I drew a line down the middle of a piece of paper, on one side of which I wrote my reasons for belief in God, on the other my reasons against. I can't remember the order of my negatives now, but the inefficacy of prayer was likely at the top. Here was a demonstrable case of promises made (if you have faith, you can move a mountain) but not kept (the mountain not only stays put but suddenly erupts and consumes a few villages). During my teens, two members of my parents' congregation died of cancer, despite all the prayers offered up on their behalf. When I looked at the congregants kneeling on cushions, their heads bent to touch the wooden pews, it seemed to me as if they were literally butting their heads against a palpable impossibility. And this was years before I discovered Samuel Butler's image for the inutility of prayer in his novel "The Way of All Flesh"—the bee that has strayed into a drawing room and is buzzing against the wallpaper, trying to extract nectar from one of the painted roses.
Click here to continue the article:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/06/09/080609crbo_books_wood/?currentPage=all
ILLUSTRATION: BRUCE ERIC KAPLAN
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, June 7, 2008 | PermalinkComments 101 - 150 of 242 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers102. Comment #190485 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 7:31 am
SteveI don't know. But what is interesting is how geological features millions of years old were laid down in preparation to give that quake.I had the pleasure of being in Iceland when they had the quake a short while ago. It was particularly interesting becuase it was a few days after I had had a tour across the part of the Island where the American and Eurasian plates meet. Where you can clearly see the way they have shaped the land. We also went to see Geysir and Strokkur and witnessed the effect of small fragments of magma heating water to 180 deg, and drove across miles of lava fields created from the chain of volcanos that runs through the area.
That had nothing to do with the quake of course, I expect it was caused by the prevalance of atheism amongst the Icelandic people (the number 1 most developed people in the world according to the UN)...
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
103. Comment #190487 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 7:33 am
Comment #190480 by irate_atheist on June 9, 2008 at 7:15 am99. Comment #190473 by Styrer -
It is all sad but true. Some may think I too readily go on the attack when dogmatic theists venture here. But when a dog bites you every time you try to pat it, that dog needs to be put down.
Religion is that dog.
Indeed.
For the record, I have never thought you too easily go on the attack. How, precisely, could that actually happen, against theists who claim to KNOW - before and in spite of any discussion - that you, I and most here are destined to burn in hell for EVER?
No, my good man. Not possible to go on the attack too easily. The first strike has been made before you have even realised it.
The Hitch's 'we have to stamp out this virus, not permit a gentler version of it' reminds me of your dog analogy.
At the moment, and in my anger, I prefer your way of putting it.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
104. Comment #190496 by Drool on June 9, 2008 at 7:46 am
Peacebeuponme wrote: Actually, just to be picky, though you are right that convention leads the UK to prefer "s", "z" is not an Americanism and used to be perfectly acceptable in the UK as well.
No zee'z for mee, pleaze, I'm British. I prefer to call it bastardisation myself. A pet peeve of mine is when software, web sites etc., use national FLAGS to represent a choice of language. Where English is often represented with the stars and stripes. Huh? Ahem, sorry for going off topic there, maybe we can describe clearthinker's spelling as the only thing he'll get right...
Other Comments by Drool
105. Comment #190502 by mordacious1 on June 9, 2008 at 7:58 am
scottishgeologistThanks. I only got 3 hrs. sleep last night and I took your link and watched David's video. Ah, way to start my morning, barfing.
David Robertson
You are a low-life, scum-bag, fucktard. You can quote me in your next book.
Other Comments by mordacious1
106. Comment #190504 by weesam on June 9, 2008 at 8:02 am
clearthinker wrote:weesam and righton...have a look at a dictionary under the word 'irony.
sorry I must be a stupid bastard - because when reading your posts I can't tell the difference between irony and bullshit :)
Other Comments by weesam
107. Comment #190506 by weesam on June 9, 2008 at 8:04 am
btwusing a "z" is the correct and preferred spelling in British English when the word is from the Greek.
"S" at other times.
Other Comments by weesam
108. Comment #190512 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 8:09 am
Ah, no wonder this thread is jumping, that horrible bug-eyed toad Robertson is back. Other Comments by Diacanu
109. Comment #190530 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 8:30 am
Comment #190512 by Diacanu on June 9, 2008 at 8:09 amYep, another couple of hits followed by a swift run.
He'll of course be back, but on a different thread.
What a disgrace of a human being he is. His fucked-up profferings should be enough to drive doubt into even the most faithful of faithoholics' ideas of 'faith'.
If reason can gain just a slightly larger foothold in the world's consciousness, such that its evidentiary nature could acquire a critical mass, then fuckwits like Robertson should, rather fittingly, simply take care of themselves as they impel themselves towards oblivion.
In the meantime, may our vocabulary remain robust enough to deal with such despicable cunts.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
110. Comment #190545 by scottishgeologist on June 9, 2008 at 8:44 am
mordacious1
Sorry 'bout that!
Actually, maybe there is a need for some sort of health warning on posts and links
"Warning: the Surgeon General has determined that the following link has emetic properties"
Or, "Warning by HM Government: following this link may cause raised blood pressure and profuse bad language" (Styrer, you listening? :-)))) )
I'll try to remember.... promise... :-)))
SG
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
111. Comment #190584 by Peacebeuponme on June 9, 2008 at 9:18 am
DroolNo zee'z for mee, pleaze, I'm British. I prefer to call it bastardisation myself.weesam
using a "z" is the correct and preferred spelling in British English when the word is from the Greek.Seriously, check out your OED. They use z all over, with s as the alternative.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
112. Comment #190603 by severalspeciesof on June 9, 2008 at 9:35 am
Let me get this straight:Robertson accuses:
Noodle - the point is that you were using a simplistic argument to make a cheap point. An argument in which you imply that God is unjust because he a) answers small trivial prayers and b) ignores the mega issues.
Then you say:
I gave one example of an answered prayer - which involved me needing a specific sum of money to help a bunch of children go on an outing. To cut a long story short we needed £87.50 to pay for the bus. We did not have the money but I wrote out a cheque for the bus driver and then the money came in through various means.Since when does giving money by writing a check that would be covered anyway if the "prayer" isn't answered, not trivial, compared to... let's see, ...a child in agony from diabetes while the parents of the child pray over her, only to have the child die? Noodle's point is spot on, and your response proves it, yet you fail to see it...
Frankus, I see you beat me to it regarding Robertson's own example of the check situation. You did it so much better...
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
113. Comment #190621 by severalspeciesof on June 9, 2008 at 9:48 am
Not that Robertson would actually answer this, but just exactly where does 'sin' come from, since all things come from God. He started everything, right? He was all by his lonesome before he went on that crazy 6 day creation thing, right? Nothing can exist without his knowledge, right? Where does sin come in? In other words: Who created it? Isn't God responsible for it, even indirectly?Just some thoughts...
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
114. Comment #190645 by noodly_noodleson on June 9, 2008 at 10:24 am
Well I'm rather busy right now (can't exactly tell my supervisor to judge my work by 'my standards', not hers), and clearthinker seems to think that begging the question is a legitimate form of argumentation, so I'll just copy/paste some of the moral standards of the biblical god:'On that night I will pass through the land of Egypt and strike down every firstborn son and firstborn male animal in the land of Egypt. I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt, for I am the Lord! ' Exodus 12:12
'Give the following instructions to Aaron: In all future generations, none of your descendants who has any defect will qualify to offer food to his God. No one who has a defect qualifies, whether he is blind, lame, disfigured, deformed, or has a broken foot or arm, or is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or has a defective eye, or skin sores or scabs, or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron who has a defect may approach the altar to present special gifts to the Lord. Since he has a defect, he may not approach the altar to offer food to his God. However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings. Yet because of his physical defect, he may not enter the room behind the inner curtain or approach the altar, for this would defile my holy places. I am the Lord who makes them holy.' Leviticus 21:17-23
'So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.' Numbers 31:17-8
'Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.' 2 Kings 2:23-4
'No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.' Deuteronomy 2:1
'Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.' Matthew 10:34-37
According to CS Lewis, the entirety of the Christian narrative is god's divine example of how humans are supposed to act. We see Christians hating gays and shunning pretend wizards, so why no virgin rape? Why no death sentences for bald jokes?
Why take its veracity for granted when even its most strident proponents won't argue the merits of every claim?
Other Comments by noodly_noodleson
115. Comment #190646 by mordacious1 on June 9, 2008 at 10:25 am
SGWell, now I have a face to put with the comments (wish I didn't). Does this guy look like the guy in high school that all the kids would stick "kick me" signs on? Maybe his turning to god was due to no friends, imaginary ones work if you have no others.
Other Comments by mordacious1
116. Comment #190671 by Drool on June 9, 2008 at 11:06 am
Peacebeuponme - I was being facetious. Although sure, my own preference is chiefly British, because that was how I was taught, but 'zed' isn't the only bastardisation.But well, my post was really a good opportunity to raise some consciousnesses, specifically regarding the use of flags to represent language, which is just wrong and stupid. < /offtopic >
Other Comments by Drool
117. Comment #190684 by noodly_noodleson on June 9, 2008 at 11:31 am
Drool,Similar to putting little illustrations on emergency exits and rubbish bins for the benefit of foreigners, the country flags operate on the assumption that people on the internet cannot read their own language and need a picture in order to correctly identify it.
Other Comments by noodly_noodleson
118. Comment #190717 by whupper on June 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm
From Comment 189881:Well Heather what do you have to say about the fact that one time I layed my hands on a man and prayed for him and his leg grew in my hand. Literally grew in my hand INCHES because I plead the blood of jesus christ and invoked the holy spirit..What do you have to say about that?"
I say go into business applying this skill to mens' privates...
Even better, does it work on brain cells?
But seriously, ... actually there is no seriously. I have no idea how you counter someone who simply believes something like that. You can't counter irrationality, can you?
Other Comments by whupper
119. Comment #190759 by Drool on June 9, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Sorry noodleson, but in this case it's still wrong and inconsiderate. Countries aren't languages. What to do with Brazil/Portuguese, Canada/French... the colour blind. There are perfectly good ways to represent it - using the name of the language written in the language itself. e.g. http://europa.eu Other Comments by Drool
120. Comment #190774 by noodly_noodleson on June 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Drool,Yes, that was the joke.
the country flags operate on the assumption that people on the internet cannot read their own language
Other Comments by noodly_noodleson
121. Comment #190800 by Drool on June 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Heh, oh the irony. *slaps self for not reading propa* Other Comments by Drool
122. Comment #190809 by scottishgeologist on June 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm
severalspeciesof : "where does sin come from?" Yes, good question, and again, one that the faith heads simply cannot answer satisfactorily without a lot of limbo dancing.
After all, when their "god" created the earth he "saw that it was good" The whole thing just does not make sense.
tsunamis, river blindness, earthquakes, cancers etc etc. The theists struggle.
Going back to the 2004 tsunami, actually, in some respects, David Robertson is in a difficult postion.
There are 3 explanations, AFAICS:
1) Liberal. "We see the love of God in the human response to the tragedy" This sort of pish was trotted out by all sorts of wishy-washy clergymen. Its a call to humanism. Not "god"
2) Fundie: Gods judgement on sabbath breaking sinners, gays, pleasure lovers etc etc rant, rant, rant, ad nauseam. The sort of thing that the Rev John Macleod came out with. Twat.
3) The middle way. The clearthinker way. And this is where it just gets muddy and totally unsatisfying either logically, intellectually and dare I say it spiritually. The idea that the earth was perfect, safe and "good" and then. Then. SIN came in yes, folks, SIN. And thats what causes all the natural evil, because as it is mentioned in Romans, "creation is groaning" because of sin. So its all YOUR fault, yes YOU! Because you are a SINNER!!!
Actually there is a 4th way, which is worse still - this is the "god is in control", we cant understand his ways (because of SIN no doubt...) , he moves in "mysterious " ways, so dont ask, dont enquire, just accept. There , be a good little deludee, and move along, I know best, I 've got a degree in theology (Pah!)
What beats me is how anyone could even begin to WANT to study this stuff, let alone preach it. And possibly worse still, be an apologist for it....
:-))
SG
PS: severalspeciesof, Love the avatar! Great album, Ummagumma. Pure late 60s acid drenched magic!
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
123. Comment #190887 by utelme on June 9, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Clearthinker.It's amazing that you think that the business with the cheque you wrote means anything. Next time why don't you get real and write a cheque for a few billion dollars and do some real good in some of the disadvantaged countries of the world. I'm sure the great fairy in the sky can do better than 87 pounds for a bus trip.
Here we have god that started as a tribal deity to a god of the world and now the god of the universe and maybe even of an eternally inflating supraverse/multiverse and all he can fix up is 87 quid? Please!
Other Comments by utelme
124. Comment #190893 by Drool on June 9, 2008 at 8:32 pm
"...and all he can fix up is 87 quid?"Don't forget the CD player!
Other Comments by Drool
125. Comment #190948 by Laurie Fraser on June 10, 2008 at 1:32 am
I still want the bears to fuck him. Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
126. Comment #190951 by mmurray on June 10, 2008 at 1:43 am
I say go into business applying this skill to mens' privates...
It works. But it doesn't last.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
127. Comment #191074 by severalspeciesof on June 10, 2008 at 7:20 am
SG, (Comment #190809)Just doing my best to spread the Floyd magic. Maybe I'll start to resume ending my comments with:
"What God Wants, God Gets, God Help Us All" R. Rogers
(Yes, I'm a Floyd Fanatic alright!)
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
128. Comment #191831 by clearthinker on June 12, 2008 at 12:35 am
If you do, you can go and get fucked by a big bear of your own choice.....Unless, of course, you genuinely do not give a flying fuck as so often seems to be the case when you're around....This will give you a flavour of the wilfully ignorant fuckwittery spread by David Robertson et al. Stone cold fucknuts........ Regrettably, fuckwittery is not regarded as a sin. Oh, what good people they are..........For Robertson, lest he feel neglected, I will reserve only a well-deserved and heartfelt 'Fuck off, cunt'.......David Robertson You are a low-life, scum-bag, fucktard. You can quote me in your next book...... sorry I must be a stupid bastard - because when reading your posts I can't tell the difference between irony and bullshit :) ............Ah, no wonder this thread is jumping, that horrible bug-eyed toad Robertson is back...... What a disgrace of a human being he is. His fucked-up profferings should be enough to drive doubt into even the most faithful of faithoholics' ideas of 'faith'........ I still want the bears to fuck him......
I see that since my last post (only a couple of days ago) this oasis of clear thinking has been living up to its reputation. Reason, and rationality have been shining forth in all their glory. course one could say that this is only a few ignorant people whose vocabulary is somewhat limited but the sad fact is that this vitriol is posted on here without any self-correction from other atheists and without the moderator moderating according to his own rules. But then again maybe the above does not count as offensive in the atheist subjective morality? I genuinely feel sorry for those self respecting atheists who are embarrassed by Dawkins and his fans. Little wonder that they have left this site.
Did you hand over the cheque, with the knowledge that the money wasn't in the account, and then only later, maybe even before or after it was cashed, some unknown strangers, some philanthropists of the night, paid money into your account?
Apathy- and all the other desperados who are really struggling to find some way to accuse me of lying - let me explain this nice and simply. I wrote a cheque for a sum of money which I did not have but I did have a bank overdraft facility which covered the amount of that cheque - therefore the cheque was not dud, nor was it dishonest to do so. In fact today I paid a bill out of my overdraft facility (being on a salary of £18,500 means that things can be a bit tight some times!). I will not explain again the point of story - especially as you do not want to see it - but if you are interested have look at the original thread.
Also, any one who uses the term 'American Imperialism', loses any argument by default, this proves you either lack any cognitive faculties to come up with your own opinions (which surprises me, after all, you've invented a god in that head of yours) or you are just a bit of a muppet.
So American imperialism does not exist? You are an a-americanimperialist? Tell that to to the Iraqis.
David, are you saying that moral relativism is an atheist tenet, and that the absence of justice is a necessary consequence?
Hungarian - Yes.
Perhaps then, to help show what a truthful person you are, you could come up with a list of the tenets of atheism, the supposed doctrines of lack of belief.
Steve - There is of course a world of difference between someone being mistaken and someone deliberately telling lies. There is also no need to accuse people who disagree with you of de facto being liars. In terms of the tenets of atheism I see them being displayed here all the time - and woebetide anyone who dares question them. I think that Paula was right to cite Baggini when he spoke about the central tenets of atheism. I am sure you could draw up a list yourself but how about starting with empiricism and logical positivism.
Where were you accused of being a murderer David?
Kindly supply a reference for this accusation.
Corylus...Look up sarcasm and irony and you will get the point. (Boy - its so hard dealing with all these literalist fundamentalists!)
However, use of reason can lead to an understanding that there are no absolute morality. This does not lead to moral anarchy, as we all have to get along.I am sure you must know of the serious philosophical work that has been done regarding ethics. If not, I am happy to point you at some references.
Thanks Steve...please do. I have read a considerable amount on this subject but am always interested in reading more. I am not sure that everyone would believe that we all have to get along.
Imagine all the terrifically useful things you could have done during these wasted hours - the science and spelling books you could have read, the museums of natural history you could have visited, all the Richard Dawkins videos you could have educationally digested.
Styrer- You are of course entitled to think that prayer is a waste of time. But is it not a bit rich to suggest that I have to repent by worshipping at your shrine and listening to your prophet?!
It isn't worth getting worked up. One of clearthinker's tactics is to get people worked up so he can quote what they say. He can spin anything.
Steve - sorry its not one of my tactics. Its one of the laws on RD net. Anyone posts anything which goes against THE TRUTH and all hell breaks loose. IWtness the thread on logical (from Canada). I started to read that thread but gave up after the umpteenth - asshole/fool/completely wrong post. You are an exception to that rule and seem to have overcome the RD net evolutionary trait towards fundamentalism...however that does not stop you inventing new defences - like 'he can spin anything'.
It isn't worth getting worked up. One of clearthinker's tactics is to get people worked up so he can quote what they say. He can spin anything.
Corylus...aw diddums.. does this mean that you want me to be banned again? Can't handle it?
Cant think of anything worse than being linked to Ken Ham, so come on guys, cut him some slack..... t
Scottish geologist - for once I totally agree with you. Have mercy....I have nothing to do with Ken Ham....
I wonder if David supports this view - after all his name and picture are on that site?
It would be good to get a confirmation that he believes that the existence of God is either unprovable or irrelevant.
Steve - because someone is on a site does not mean that they have endorsed it. I do not support that view.
where it generated the largest response of any posting before or since.
Absolutely a lie. Please visit RichardDawkins.net. Please feel free to search the hundreds of articles and threads that have produced more many more comments and posts, before and since April 2008.
Poor Juxta Monkey - having been caught out already by a lack of information, you have done the same thing again. I would like to show you mercy but you are using your ignorance to accuse me of lying so sorry I have to deal with what you say. Firstly I did not say or write either of the quotes you cite. Secondly when the publisher of the Dawkins Letters wrote that blurb it was actually true. Of course since then there have been threads with more posts - the most being Paula's review largely of my book. At the time it was written it was true- even though I did not write it and personally I did not like it. And just to bring you up to speed - in cae you make another faux pas....several of the followers on this website have also accused my publisher of lying because of the quotes from the original thread contained in the book. If you go to that thread now - they are not there. In their eyes this of course means that my publisher (and I) were lying. Of course they do not consider the possibility that over 300 posts were removed by the webmaster (which they were0.
Which brings my back to thewhitepearl. Didn't you mention that she was lying when you had a link with the RD site to your blog...wow, just wow. I can't believe you make money of your spiritual abuse.
You really need to get with it. Firstly whitepearl says she was not writing about me. So I apologised for thinking that she was. Mind you given that there was no other heretic involved in that discussion I did wonder who she was writing about and asked her. So far she has not managed to reply. Perhaps she is busy? And if she was referring to me (which of course she could not have been because she would not lie) then she would have been wrong - I did not refer to my blog in that thread.
Seems like RD and us "little" people are making you a nice fat paycheck. No. I take that back. Your lying is making you an nice big fat paycheck. Surely your checks won't magically "not bounce" now! Now you'll never have to pay the bank another cent again.
Wrong again. You have still not managed to evidence one lie I have said. And sadly I have not received a fat pay cheque (and before you look up your internet dictionary ..that is how we spell it in Britain!). On the other hand your guru is minting it in....buy the t-shirt, wear the badge and keep getting the books.
Also, why did god choose Banda Aceh, Sichuan and the Irrawady Delta? Are they more sinful than elaewhere?
This question has never been answered satisfactorily by a theist.
Peace - He didn't.
Why couldn't you have just said this months ago David? It would have caused so much unecessary grief.
I suspected long ago that you couldn't possibly believe that your bad cheque incident was evidence of prayer answered. I went so far as to suggest you might be lying (if even just to yourself). Now you have confirmed it. Or perhaps you have just changed your mind because it is only now that you realize (or realise) the absurdity of your former position.
Frankus. I did. You were not listening. And logic is obviously not your strong point. I do believe that praying for £87.50, not telling anyone, and receving precisely that su, through three different sources by the end of the day is either an answer to prayer or a tremendous coincidence.
Either Robertson believes that the funds appeared by supernatural agency or that the funds appeared by some naturalistic explanation. If the former (which would be consistent with his Creationism and other theistic beliefs) then he is at least consistent if deluded. If the latter then his representation to us of the event is a vile piece of self-serving and hypocritical dissembling.
Alan W - Neither logic nor theology seems to be your forte either. You think that all answered prayer is a miracle? Who teaches that? The funds did appear by some naturalistic agency. That is normally how God works. When I buy my wife some flowers and they are delivered by the flowershop - my wife does not turn round and say that because they were handed over by a van driver I had nothing to do with it. Think about it.
Yep, another couple of hits followed by a swift run.
Styrer - wrong again. Your predictive and analytic abilities are about as limited as your vocabulary.
Not that Robertson would actually answer this, but just exactly where does 'sin' come from, since all things come from God. He started everything, right? He was all by his lonesome before he went on that crazy 6 day creation thing, right? Nothing can exist without his knowledge, right? Where does sin come in? In other words: Who created it? Isn't God responsible for it, even indirectly?
Severalspeices - Good question. If you are serious about the answer then I would suggest reading Augustine. If you don't have the time the basic idea is that in order for there to be good. or to know good there has to be an opposite. For light you need darkness. He argues that sin is not a created thing but the absence of good - and that in order for there to be freewill there has to be something to choose. God could have made us all robots. But he didn't.
Does this guy look like the guy in high school that all the kids would stick "kick me" signs on? Maybe his turning to god was due to no friends, imaginary ones work if you have no others.
Mordacious - you got me.....(weeps buckets)....I confess....I had and have no friends and just made up the God of the Bible out of my head.....please help me....thank God (if he exists) for your sheer brilliance and perceptiveness...
You can't counter irrationality, can you?
Wupper - yes I have noticed.....especially when it thinks it is the only rationality.
Other Comments by clearthinker
129. Comment #191837 by Philip1978 on June 12, 2008 at 12:56 am
DavidPlease can you be so kind as to never refer to Corylus as a "literalist fundamentalists!" ever again. I do not know Corylus as a person but from her posts I see nothing fundamentalist about her. She is a highly intelligent, interesting and fun poster who I have a lot of respect for.
I have objected many times to your use of the word fundamentalist, something which you insist on clinging to, I am going to continue to ask politely if you could refrain from using the word as it is clear you have no idea what it means.
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
130. Comment #191838 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 1:03 am
128. Comment #191831 by clearthinker on June 12, 2008 at 12:35 amDavid, are you saying that moral relativism is an atheist tenet, and that the absence of justice is a necessary consequence?
Hungarian - Yes.
Well then you're talking piffle.
Firstly, as Steve Zara has pointed out, there are plenty of atheists who believe in absolute morality. They're called Buddhists.
Secondly, it is not a binary choice between absolute morality and moral relativism. Some moralities are more coherent than others, and some are more evolutionarily stable than others. Sure, this is doesn't prove an ought - see the work of that fine Scotsman David Hume - but that doesn't prevent us as a society from adopting a collective morality. I would be amazed if you found anyone here defending, say, the regime in Iran on the ground of moral relativism.
And thirdly, the absence of justice doesn't follow from moral relativism. Even if "substantive justice", whatever that is, would become an even vaguer concept and subject to different moral systems, formal justice would survive. I've already been through this in my reply to you on the "word to non-believers" thread: [link].
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
131. Comment #191842 by mordacious1 on June 12, 2008 at 1:18 am
DavidHave you noticed that your posts don't get deleted from this site, even though most of it is drivel? Your site however cannot take the criticism, and you delete entire threads. You seem to be able to dish it out, but not take it. Still sensitive about being teased in high school (not sure of the equivalent in UK)?
Other Comments by mordacious1
132. Comment #191846 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 1:44 am
Have mercy....I have nothing to do with Ken Ham....
Prove it. Make a statement here which states that evolution happened, and that there were natural disasters, diseases and deaths long before humans turned up.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
133. Comment #191847 by Vaal on June 12, 2008 at 1:44 am
Guys, no point biting to David Robertson. It is a futile exercise. He just posts his paranoid drivel and waits for the reaction. He doesn't have anything new to say, and he doesn't bring anything to the debate. I admit I have had my fun with him in the past, as he is very easy to wind up, but I think it is time to just ignore him as the troll he is, until he actually has something to add to the discussion, otherwise it will be just more of the same. David, when you can add something substantive other than your incessant vacuous inanities, then you will get a decent response. Until then, personally I will be ignoring your sad, condescending and worthless rants.
Other Comments by Vaal
134. Comment #191849 by Goldy on June 12, 2008 at 1:52 am
Mordacious1, you will find that those of a religious bent tend toA) call themselves something they generally are not. Clearthinker is a case to point.
B) enjoy the trappings of open fora but not allow it when they are in control. See how the Church, once it's evil claws were entrenched into society, actively supressed all other thought. Islamic countries are a good case to point even today.
I have to say the humourless WeeF did come up with one truth
Mordacious - you got me.....(weeps buckets)....I confess....I had and have no friends and just made up the God of the Bible out of my head.....please help me....thank God (if he exists) for your sheer brilliance and perceptiveness...
The god he professes to worship and follow does not exist outside that space between his ears. Indeed, it "is not the God I worship", according to the vast majority of Protestants (to name but one sect of his cult).
He should take comfort from this - at least his morality is his own (like ours) - just he needs the security blanket we have grown out of.
Other Comments by Goldy
135. Comment #191851 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 am
Alan W - Neither logic nor theology seems to be your forte either. You think that all answered prayer is a miracle? Who teaches that? The funds did appear by some naturalistic agency. That is normally how God works. When I buy my wife some flowers and they are delivered by the flowershop - my wife does not turn round and say that because they were handed over by a van driver I had nothing to do with it. Think about it.
Oh dear. Not much logic here.
If things appear by naturalistic agency, then by definition there has been no intervention, and all natural causal connections can be traced.
If there has been intervention from the supernatural (a meaningless concept in itself), then it is miraculous.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
136. Comment #191854 by AllanW on June 12, 2008 at 2:07 am
Comment #191851 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 am'Oh dear. Not much logic here.'
Exactly. I didn't have much time to respond to Robertson's latest couple of excretions and I'll probably follow Vaal's advice that it's not worth doing anyway yet his response is demonstrably inane as you point out.
Isn't it interesting that his first post on this thread was couched in terms of a 'miracle' (see 'I gave one example of an answered prayer - which involved me needing a specific sum of money to help a bunch of children go on an outing.' in Comment #190347 by clearthinker on June 8, 2008 at 11:08 pm) which he now backs clearly away from in his latest post. And then claims bitter persecution when people call into question his repeated mendacious lies.
Typical Robertson.
Other Comments by AllanW
137. Comment #191855 by Goldy on June 12, 2008 at 2:10 am
You think that all answered prayer is a miracle? Who teaches that? The funds did appear by some naturalistic agency. That is normally how God works. When I buy my wife some flowers and they are delivered by the flowershop - my wife does not turn round and say that because they were handed over by a van driver I had nothing to do with it. Think about it.OK. A Sinophobe was cut up in traffic by an Asian looking driver. He utters a prayer suring all Chinese adn lo and behold, an earthquake occurs, killing thousands. This then is the fault of the Sinophobe? And by God's blessing?
God doesn't normally work at all. Have you prayed for an amputees limb to grow back? After all, this god you mention gives you 80-odd quid at your request - simple monetary gain with no meaning at all outside your own life. Nothing earth moving or life changing. Hell, if your god can lend you a few quid, why not a limb? Why not make a real difference, a real miracle? £80-odd made only you happy and gave you a story but nothing more has come of it. A conjuring trick, no more. Tell me something meaningful - and don't give me crap about how I would not appreciate it. If Jesus had that mentality, he'd have shut his trap adn whittled wood like his "dad". Mohammed would have stuck to trading with the odd bout of camel theft. Your god saw fit to give you £80-some - surely it was not purely for the anecdotes.
Other Comments by Goldy
138. Comment #191857 by Goldy on June 12, 2008 at 2:18 am
Just as I was starting to get irritated by the religous I come across here, I see thishttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html
Poor WeeF - must be hard to think he is a minnow in this sea of intellectual titans :-)
Other Comments by Goldy
139. Comment #191860 by Corylus on June 12, 2008 at 2:36 am
Clearthinker/David RobertsonRather than deal with the point of the story in context (I accept that this was too much to expect) some of the atheists got all moral (despite of course not having any absolute morality) and started claiming I was dishonest, a cheat, liar, murderer (therefore God does not exist) because I wrote a 'dud' cheque.Me
Where were you accused of being a murderer David?Clearthinker/David Robertson
Kindly supply a reference for this accusation.
Sarcasm? Irony? 'Hyberbole' is perhaps the most generous assessment that I could make concerning the above. However, I feel that a disgusting 'falsehood' would be more apposite description. (Look up both terms if you have to.)
Corylus...Look up sarcasm and irony and you will get the point. (Boy - its so hard dealing with all these literalist fundamentalists!)
does this mean that you want me to be banned again?That is Admin's decision: not mine.
-----
Philip, Thank you.
Other Comments by Corylus
140. Comment #191863 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 2:58 am
133. Comment #191847 by Vaal on June 12, 2008 at 1:44 amGuys, no point biting to David Robertson. It is a futile exercise. He just posts his paranoid drivel and waits for the reaction. He doesn't have anything new to say, and he doesn't bring anything to the debate.
You are probably right.
On the other hand, if he is really here to quote-mine, we could have a little fun with this.
There's the Wolverhampton Gambit, for starters. (If you find yourself kidnapped by Al Qaeda and they tell you to confess on video that you are a spy, agree heartily with them and say that so are their Wolverhampton branch. It might not save your life, but it will ruin their video and deplete their resources.)
Or in the middle of any insult, add the words "quote-mining". That forces a dishonest quotation.
Or add something nice, or irrelevant. Or a word that his intended audience are going to have to look up.
Example:
You are an ignorant, self-absorbed, tall, homophobic catamite. And at least three of your congregation agree with me.
Just a thought.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
141. Comment #191872 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 3:24 am
133. Comment #191847 by Vaal
Guys, no point biting to David Robertson. It is a futile exercise. He just posts his paranoid drivel and waits for the reaction. He doesn't have anything new to say, and he doesn't bring anything to the debate.
I kind of agree but i think all that is needed is for everyone to just stop telling DR what we think of him and just concentrate on the actual fallacies he produces.
What people tend to do is bring him up on something valid and then add some insults on the end. Then what happens is he responds mainly to the insults and not to the real meat of the post.
Steve Z seems to be achieving this with good effect which produces an actual (if not still wrong) responces from DR. severalspeciesof also did it above.
I know it is so tempting to let rip but it is this letting rip which is giving him loads of excuses to avoid dealing with the real questions which are so valid.
If we can all make an agreement to stop with the insults and telling him what we think of him (no matter what he says) we will get shorter more focused responces from him which can then be highlighted for their lack of logic and abbundance of ill thought.
Worth a try?
Other Comments by phatbat
142. Comment #191877 by Philip1978 on June 12, 2008 at 3:30 am
VaalI am tempted to use the Arthur Dent Gambit, I want to see who rusts first!
I refuse to let David use the word fundamentalist until he knows what the word means
Corylus, you are welcome
You once very kindly called me a gentleman, I have a reputation to uphold! ;)
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
143. Comment #191897 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 4:30 am
clearthinker-If you don't have the time the basic idea is that in order for there to be good. or to know good there has to be an opposite.
I see a bit of a problem with the existence of an afterlife then. Good people spend an eternity in heaven, and it is supposed to be nice. But how then is that possible if there is no nasty there? Don't people have freewill in heaven? Or are there only the kind of people who choose to be nice? If that is the case, why didn't God just make people who choose niceness?
I honestly find this all a bit confusing. I mean, if someone wants to believe in a Trinity, it is probably better to go with the Wyrd Sisters - the Norns - the Fates. I mean, they weren't expected to be nice all the time, so there is no theodicy problem.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
144. Comment #191914 by Apathy personified on June 12, 2008 at 5:16 am
clearthinker,I, and everyone else, was only looking for clarification about your story, nothing more, so stop trying to play the victim card.
Thanks for the clarification - you cashed the cheque and used your overdraft facility - now i understand the story and everyone else does, there was no magic, just a high interest convenience available to customers of your particular bank.
I haven't been a desperado since i sold my sombrero.
My point is that you have lifted the term 'American Imperialism' from the letters page of 'Socialist Workers Weekly' or where ever and it is used as an anti Iraq invasion term and doesn't accurately describe the current situation on the ground or in the political sphere - For the latest anti American buzzwords you should always check the opinion pages of the guardian and then go nuts, but being anti - every american is technically xenophobic.
Also, i have noticed how you appear to have singled out thewhitepearl, juxtamonkey and corylus for a disproportionate amount of your own unique brand of 'criticism', why is this?
thewhitepearl, juxtamonkey, corylus - you all rule - keep shaking him, clearly he can't deal with the finer sex.
Edit: Grammatical mistakes
Other Comments by Apathy personified
145. Comment #191997 by mordacious1 on June 12, 2008 at 9:24 am
phatbatI would agree with you, if this hadn't been tried before. Everyone has tried to use logic/reasoning with him, and he just ignores it and goes on about his rants. The solution is to totally ignore him, as some have suggested, or throw an insult his way once in awhile. Ignoring is probably best, but insulting can be fun...
He probably needs more material for his next "book", and the man surely has to make a living off the mindless who would buy his drivel. (Ah, got my insult in).
Other Comments by mordacious1
146. Comment #192780 by JuxtaMonkey on June 14, 2008 at 1:00 am
Thank you Apathy Personified ;). I think I am done dealing with clearthinker as well. Clearly, he is here for some benefit that he is trying to fulfill that is missing elsewhere in his life. Steve has brought up some fabulous points about sin for which I had not thought about before!
As far as sin, forgiveness, and going to heaven goes--can someone point me to the verse that states that something like, when you die and go to the gates of heaven if you never asked god into your heart god will tell you that "Go away from me, fore I never knew you." I'm just wondering because I was thinking that if God never knew me, and I was still a "moral" person how I could still produce good acts, better than perhaps one of the million Christian-American prisoner. Personally, I love knowing that nothing from my past is erased and damn anyone who would wash my hard earned lessons away from me!!!
Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey
147. Comment #193161 by clearthinker on June 14, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Firstly, as Steve Zara has pointed out, there are plenty of atheists who believe in absolute morality. They're called Buddhists.
Hungarian - I am not so sure about this. I have read some Buddhist writers who deny the concept of absolute morality. And I have also met some who say they believe in God. Its a bit more complex than you suggest.
Have you noticed that your posts don't get deleted from this site, even though most of it is drivel? Your site however cannot take the criticism, and you delete entire threads.
Mordacious - I'm afraid that you need to get your facts right. Many of my posts have been deleted from this site and I have been banned several times. And our site has not deleted entire threads. We had a revamp a while ago and started over again - but you will notice that many atheists post and their posts are left. Still apart from that your post was accurate!
David, when you can add something substantive other than your incessant vacuous inanities, then you will get a decent response. Until then, personally I will be ignoring your sad, condescending and worthless rants.
Vaal - that is of course a very neat psychological defence. A bit like the child sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'I can't hear you, I can't hear you'. By definition anyone who disagrees with you and dares to explain why is 'insubstantive, vacuous, etc. By definition such an attitude is the essence of the fundamentalist. Feel free to disagree with me and to point out where I am wrong. But name calling does not really work as an argument for me.
If things appear by naturalistic agency, then by definition there has been no intervention, and all natural causal connections can be traced.
Steve - by whose definition? The trouble is that you are confusing things. Who says that answered prayer always has to be miraculous? If I pray that the Lord will provide me with food and he does so by enabling me to buy food out of a shop (thereby using 'natural' agencies), rather than causing food to miraculously appear on my plate - then why should that be considered strange. The vast majority of answered prayers are done through ,natural' agencies. It is just that we believe that God (as well as human beings) is well able to use them.
And then claims bitter persecution when people call into question his repeated mendacious lies.
AlanW - I know this is getting boring - but then so are your repeated accusations. I will make this simple for you - please tell me one repeated mendacious lie that I have told.
OK. A Sinophobe was cut up in traffic by an Asian looking driver. He utters a prayer suring all Chinese adn lo and behold, an earthquake occurs, killing thousands. This then is the fault of the Sinophobe? And by God's blessing?
Goldy - Huh? What is your point? Such simplistic statements really show an ignorance of both philosophy and theology which is quite breathtaking. Your statement would only make any kind of sense if God answered all prayer and directly did so. No Christian would ever teach that.
Just as I was starting to get irritated by the religous I come across here, I see this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-'less-likely-to-believe-in-God'.html
Poor WeeF - must be hard to think he is a minnow in this sea of intellectual titans :-)
Yes - Goldy - this is 'research; done by the same man who tells us that blacks are less intelligent than whites. I guess Hitler had it right - white atheists really are the superior race!
If we can all make an agreement to stop with the insults and telling him what we think of him (no matter what he says) we will get shorter more focused responces from him which can then be highlighted for their lack of logic and abbundance of ill thought.
Worth a try?
Phat bat - yes - PLEASE.
I see a bit of a problem with the existence of an afterlife then. Good people spend an eternity in heaven, and it is supposed to be nice. But how then is that possible if there is no nasty there?
Steve - decisions are made by then. The nastiness is all in hell.
Thanks for the clarification - you cashed the cheque and used your overdraft facility - now i understand the story and everyone else does, there was no magic, just a high interest convenience available to customers of your particular bank.
Apathy - thanks - but you are still not getting the point of the story. It has nothing to do with whether I would go into overdraft or not. If the £87.50 had not been received then I would have. I prayed that it would - and by the end of the day - without telling anyone it was - from three different sources. Now of course it could have been coincidence. And I am not saying this proves anything...but it is part of my personal empirical evidence for my own faith.
Everyone has tried to use logic/reasoning with him, and he just ignores it and goes on about his rants.
Mordacious - thank you. That is so funny. Everyone?! A classic example of myopic reading - seeing only what you want to see. Either you have a problem with reading or you have a completely different definition of logic and reasoning.
Other Comments by clearthinker
148. Comment #193162 by MPhil on June 14, 2008 at 11:11 pm
David,Steve - by whose definition? The trouble is that you are confusing things. Who says that answered prayer always has to be miraculous? If I pray that the Lord will provide me with food and he does so by enabling me to buy food out of a shop (thereby using 'natural' agencies), rather than causing food to miraculously appear on my plate - then why should that be considered strange. The vast majority of answered prayers are done through ,natural' agencies. It is just that we believe that God (as well as human beings) is well able to use them.
My goodness - that really made me laugh. Someone doesn't get the principle of exclusion: If an event e at time t has determinable cause, that's it. It eliminates the need - and thus any justification for assuming another cause. Even if - counterfactually - the concepts of the supernatural and of god were meaningful and even if - counterfactually - it had any explanatory value... if there is a naturalistic explanation, that's it. There is no room left for any supernatural causal origin, no dials to set, nothing to tweak.
my personal empirical evidence
Either there is real evidence - then it holds up to critical examination by the standards of rationality, or it isn't evidence.
Either you have a problem with reading or you have a completely different definition of logic and reasoning.
Holy cow - that is certainly a contender for the most hubristical comment you ever made.
Remember when I laid out some of the logical inconsistencies in the concept of God?
Try reading Sobel's "Logic and Theism", or Martin's "The Impossibility of God"... and then make that claim with a straight face again.
But what's more - you have proved yourself to be arrogant beyond description by yet again having come up with the arrogant claim of "No morality without absolute morality, no absolute morality God"... I took that apart ages ago, time and again. I have shown both how theism cannot escape the conclusion that the foundation of its morailty is either contingent and subjective, or necessarily arbitrary. I have further pointed out to you that there are dozens of philosophically coherent metaethical and ethical theories that do not necessitate a deity, or even universals. And I was neither the first nor the last to do so.
Normally, I would say you are simply ignorant of the tradition of philosophical ethics over the last two and a half thousand years. But your errors have been pointed out to you - and yet you come back and make that same, stupid claim. That, David, is not just ignorance, it's irrationality and hubris.
Other Comments by MPhil
149. Comment #193167 by clearthinker on June 14, 2008 at 11:30 pm
MPhil -Sorry - but the notion of God using ,natural' causes is perfectly logical. Your definition that something can only be an answer to prayer if it does not involve natural agencies is wrong. It is your definition not the Bibles.
And yes you have argued that you can have morality without absolutes and even absolute morality without God. But the arrogance is in assuming that because you have argued it, therefore it is arrogant for anyone to reject what you have said. Are you seriously claiming that the debate is over and that all philosophers are now of your opinion. As it happens I was speaking at a conference yesterday with Professor John Haldane, professor of philosophy at the University of St Andrews, and he argued precisely against the position you hold. Then agin maybe he does not know what he is talking about and is guilty of irrationality and hubris?
Other Comments by clearthinker
150. Comment #193178 by Goldy on June 14, 2008 at 11:47 pm
As it happens I was speaking at a conference yesterday with Professor John Haldane, professor of philosophy at the University of St Andrews, and he argued precisely against the position you hold. Then agin maybe he does not know what he is talking about and is guilty of irrationality and hubris?As far as I can tell, the only reason you don't think he is irrational is because you agree with him.
Other Comments by Goldy
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Most people can't bear to sit in church for an hour on Sundays. How are they supposed to live somewhere very similar to it for eternity?"
Mark Twain
Other Recommended Reading
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
101. Comment #190480 by irate_atheist on June 9, 2008 at 7:15 am
It is all sad but true. Some may think I too readily go on the attack when dogmatic theists venture here. But when a dog bites you every time you try to pat it, that dog needs to be put down.
Religion is that dog.
Other Comments by irate_atheist