1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160664 by laphroaigman on April 14, 2008 at 9:06 am

Epeeist:

"You come to the site, make an assertion that someone is a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest, talk about "atheist hordes", rant with SCARY CAPITALS and little coherence and then you wonder why people deride you?"

two points:

1) you find my ALL CAPS to be a rant? and to be scary? and yet offensive, and oft-times vulgar language doesn't qualify as a rant of scary? That's a tad odd, don't you think? Scared of capital letters! Q'uell horror!

2) you presume to think you know why I am here? Try asking sometime instead of presuming.

there was NOTHING incoherent or inconsistent with my claim to Dr. Dawkin's hypocrisy! He stated, in his own words that he believes in, and considers as factual and right, something that he then goes on to state the principles of which should not, in his opinion, then be applied to situations.

At best, that is precisely hypocrisy, at its intellectual worst, it is situational ethics...

"Did you come here to have a reasonable discussion, or simply to engage in quarrel dialogue? If the former then look at Kardashovel's posts and the responses he gets. Personally though, I think you are really here to vent your apoplectic ire and besmirch the name of a good whisky."

I came here to a) learn where you all are coming from, b) to posit some questions that just might get some of you thinking in broader terms, and c) to try and be reasonable... my very first post was attacked, despite a lack of factual errors, and a lack of "name calling"...

And I do like Kardashovels posts...

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160510 by laphroaigman on April 14, 2008 at 7:05 am

Too funny... I make a point that the Dawkins apologists are always resorting to ad-hominem and/or personal attacks, and then my very first post is responded to with things like:

"drivel"
"piss off"
"laughable"
"Troll"
"taking a piss"
"deliberately starting a fight"

And a bunch more I can't remember just now because there are so absolutely MANY of them...

Once again PROVING my point.

There is no possibility of truly civil discourse with most of you. Failing a truly intellectual argument you all once again devolve into the realm of screaming, insulting, and just generally boorish behavior.

This isn't surprising since you all have already dismissed, a-priori, the potential existence of well over half of the total realm of creation (there is so little we puny humans actually DO know, married as so many obviously are to the "god" of the 3 pounds of greyish mush in their skulls)...

If you dismiss the potential existence of anything you (as an individual) have NOT perceived (or cannot imagine), then how can you communicate intelligently upon it? You are playing in a sandbox with artificially restricted dimensions. So, you act as any child does in a sandbox when something is said about their toys, and very promptly throw a tantrum.

There is so much we as a species do not yet KNOW scientifically; and, I, personally, have confidence it will ever be thus. When (and as!) new facts are uncovered, they can be integrated into such a worldview seamlessly. They do not prove the absolute truth of the statement "we humans scientifically know everything"; nor do they refute the truth that we do NOT know everything", they simply add one more datapoint that moves us asymptotically towards BETTER - but never perfect - understanding.

Lack of, or not believing in faith is every bit as much a demonstration of "faith" as faith itself.

To the person who claimed my pointing out of Dawkins hypocrisy itself was somehow a personal attack: Well, what part of that obvservation "WAS AN AD-HOMINEM"? There was no gratuitous insult? No name calling?

And, it was TRUE! Pointing out facts is not being insulting (if you are being intellectually honest).

There are only two possibilities, here:

1) it was either pure hypocrisy: paraprhasing: "I believe in the absolute truth and reality of A, but do NOT believe that A should be applied to how we run things or how I approach life"... OR, potentially more disconcertingly...

2) it was some type of reality denying pyschosis: again paraphrasing: "I believe in A, and I believe in factual reality and that factual reality should be applied to running my life, but I simultaneously don't believe in A" (somehow)...

It fascinates me how loud, and insulting, all those who profess virulent atheism and/or darwiniasm, end up becoming. The emotionalism, the virulent anger. It is really quite sad.

BTW: just saying by way of EXAMPLE: I've noticed similar behavior on the part of 8-10 year old children - that wonderful age where they are approaching the "so called age of reason", but not yet fully integrating all aspects of emotional and intellectual health and maturity necessary to not suddenly give way to emotional and/or irrational outburts and/or mental fugues...

Perhaps if you all wanted to truly be treated with the respect you all so obviously and desperately crave, you should at least try using NICE WORDS! Such constant sourness is most unappealing to the vast majority of civilized and polite people.

Or is all you really want to accomplish that peculiar joy of capturing all that can captured with vinegar instead of using honey?

Last I saw, vinegar usually catches fruit flies!

Oh, I get it! Fruit flies! Too funny. You only want to capture that which comports to your narrow world views!

I pray for all unbelievers every day.

Peace be with you all, and you may find the joy and peace that surpasses understanding.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158448 by laphroaigman on April 10, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Sorry for the VERY late entry into this giant RANT fest, but after reading Richards initial posting on this topic, I felt called to respond.

Truly, all one needs to know about Richard Dawkins ability to let FACTS drive his beliefs and actions in an intellectually honest fashion is taken from a direct quote from his initial screed/post in this blog:

"As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian)."

Last time I referred to the dictionary definition of "HYPOCRITE" it precisely described this type of belief and action system!

Plain and simply, sir, you are a complete hypocrite. This renders all you say on this topic to be intellectually dishonest if not completely bankrupt. You let your professed intellectual beliefs NOT be played out in your actions!

Notwithstanding the complete and utter hypocrisy of this self-said belief system, it falls apart intrinsically, hoist, as it were, on its own petard...

"I approve of looking after the poor" - how, precisely, Sir? By forcibly taking property or money from those who created it by investing the only thing of "root value" in your precious theoretical belief system, namely TIME, and GIVING it to someone else who didn't invest that TIME (or effort). Who made you "god"? Oh that's right, there is no god...

Or do you approve of it because you know, deep down in your heart, that in spite of its completely antithetical nature to your professed belief system - it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

(If that is the case, what is that power, that urge, that feeling, that WHATEVER, that whispers in your heart/ear: "it is the right thing to do"?)

"SHUT UP - I can't believe in YOU!"

Or, did you and your fans perhaps believe that property/money isn't actually made/earned by individuals through labor or intellectual pursuit, but rather "has always existed" and therefore was unfairly acquired by the "haves at the expense of the "have nots"... THAT belief irreducibly devolves into an implicit belief in a "creator" (of the wealth/property!)... So, you can believe in one type of "creator", but not another?

Finally, the area in which Dawkins and his atheistic hoard are on the shakiest ground vis a vis their rabid and panicked fear of all things ID, is Cosmology...

Just what, precisely, sir, existed BEFORE the big bang? In this post WMAP time in cosmology, how do you answer the question: who/what created the initial singularity at the instant of the beginning of the observable universe?

Its funny, I really wish these debates could occur and proceed without endless regression down into ad-hominem blather... but they always do...

And, to paraphrase, "me thinketh he doth protest too much"...

Those who protest the most emotionally, with the most personal insults, prove themselves the weakest in their "inmost beings" (else why the fear, the un-reasoning lashing out, the emotionalism?)...

Its funny... I was long an Atheist, a Randian-objectivist if you must...

But a funny thing happened on the way to my own personal date with entropy... I discovered the power and truth of Faith.

Turns out it doesn't kill you.

And it is sure nice not being afraid of those who disagree with one's opinion.

It's also nice not being afraid of the answers to questions like:

"How did life begin?", or "What happens when we die?" and the like...

And, finally, it is really nice to have an answer to that nagging voice you so clearly hear, Richard! You know, the one that has already convinced you that it is the right thing to do to take of the poor? Etc...

I suggest a healthy meal, a nice adult beverage (perhaps a bottle of nice Bordeaux), and a good Bible study... it'll do wonders, Richard! (maybe in that order!)

If you fear the Bible so, then perhaps just start with CS Lewis... it won't kill you.

PS: You'd be entirely more listenable (if not necessarily convincing) if you backed off from all the sarcastic, ad-hominem attacks, and were truly intellectually honest and consistent. (hint: lose the hypocrisy, it does so make it hard to believe ANYTHING you say or write)