51. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82733 by Lauregon on October 27, 2007 at 11:53 am

Religion is not the only kind of irrationality. No one is 100% rational, we all have our own irrational hang ups - Bonzai

But religion is the irrationality that claims a transcendent, almighty, all-powerful, omniscient "God" as the author of one's beliefs and morals, and religion is the one irrationality that is culturally supposed to remain exempt from question and public discussion. This prohibition is one way in which religious moderates enable fundamental- ism. My own experience of a lifetime among believers suggests that if it came down to having to choose between fundamentalism and atheism, moderate religionists would finally choose fundamentalism---however reluctantly---if for no other reason than from fear of rampant immorality in the absence of "God," which in itself suggests that the link between fundamentalism and moderate belief is stronger than may seem apparent on the surface.

52. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82576 by Lauregon on October 26, 2007 at 7:13 pm

I am sure now it's not your finger you have in that hole but your head. FWTP! - Alovrin

Pictorial!

53. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82459 by Lauregon on October 26, 2007 at 11:24 am

By constantly drumming up the various stupid bits in the Bible or by fishing up the most titillating anecdotes of theistic mischief around in order to argue – against reason and scientific evidence – that religious belief conduces to immoral behavior, atheism is blowing a lot of smoke to hide the fact that it is its own house that is conceptually shaky and besides offers a clear and logical path towards immoral behavior.- Dianelos

LOL. Picking through the Bible for wee bits that suit your "perfect God" theory, and dumping the rest is a shaky proposition.

54. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82454 by Lauregon on October 26, 2007 at 11:17 am

As for the "Green man" and the "triple goddess" I don't know what you mean by that. - Dianelos

Which enhances my suspicion that you're a run of the mill creationist poseur.

55. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82453 by Lauregon on October 26, 2007 at 11:11 am

Yes. You appear to be surprised, but not all Christians, not by far, are dogmatic. Haven't you ever heard of "liberal Christianity"? In fact, as far as liberal Christians go, I am pretty orthodox. There are Christians who don't believe in the incarnation, nor in the resurrection, nor in the Trinity. - Dianelos

Yes. Those people eventually become admirers of Bishop Spong, and abandon the concept of theism altogether, but you, bound inextricably to theism, see him as having thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

What's more, there are very few really "Fundamentalist Christians". There are many millions who pay lip service to the claim that every word in the Bible is literally true, but they obviously do not believe it as evidenced by the fact that they, for example, work on the Sabbath without giving it a thought, even though according to the Bible doing so is a terrible sin punishable by death. That all Christians are dogmatic or that many Christians are fundamentalist is one more figment in the imagination of popular atheism I am afraid. - Dianelos

I haven't heard that mainstream churches have abandoned the Apostles and Nicene creeds, and given the hatred Bishop Spong's views reap among the orthodox, it's safe to suppose that credal beliefs continue to hold great sway in Christian Churches. Nor have I heard that the Pope or the Archibishop of Canterbury have abandoned creedal beliefs. Nor have I heard anything about Eastern Orthodox prelates abandoning credal beliefs. Your argumentation is vacuous.

I find it pretty evident that atheism, being such a frail worldview, must find ways to trivialize theism and build up strawmen in order to shore up its own viability. - Dianelos

If the creeds are strawmen, Christian belief is what's frail.

I am not implying that atheists do this on purpose; I am only saying that if they didn't do that they wouldn't remain atheists for long. Dawkins in his TGD argues that agnosticism is not a viable intellectual position. I on the contrary think that if one studies the issues agnosticism is the only viable non-religious intellectual position. - Dianelos

If it ever happens the Pope, the A of C, and the prelates of Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., announce to their congregations that the creeds are obsolete, and that the resurrection will not celebrated any longer, maybe we can revisit this discussion.

SRWB in the next post shares your sentiment. But the dogma of atonement is not the whole substance of Christianity. What is, is the belief that there is a God of perfection and that we come closer to God by following the way of Christ as described in his "new commandment" in John 13:34-35.

The substance of John 13:34-35 is that Jesus is about to offer himself as scapegoat in a blood sacrifice. And what's a scapegoat for? The remission of sins, i.e., atonement.

Or, as Jesus elsewhere in the gospels says, if we try to be in this life as perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. That's the substance of Christianity. - Dianelos

Unfortunately, the idea that "God" is "perfect" is a dogma that has no means of being proven or even observed. We do, however, have the Parable of the Talents to look to to see what the Kingdom of Heaven would be like: a fiefdom run by an avaricious, murderous mafia don. And we have the Parable of the Unfaithful Servant who is cut to pieces by his master for being a bad servant. And we have the Lesson of the Fig Tree which Jesus inexplicably curses for not having fruit out of season. And we have other delightful tales from the Bible, such as Jesus' tale about the Last Judgement in which sinners will fry in hell for eternity. Lovely models of perfection for humans to emulate.

56. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82019 by Lauregon on October 25, 2007 at 2:40 pm

An aside:

I wonder whether commiserating with Sinbad gains us any points in DG's ethical worldview? Would it gain us more points if we were theists? - Epeeist

The San Diego area where Rancho Bernardo smolders, is fast-growing, heavily theist, devoutly anti-tax, George W Bush Country. The New York Times reports today that one problem in fighting the fires down there was the piecemeal hodge-podge of fire agencies in the area, a result of the area's opposition to increased taxation.

57. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82008 by Lauregon on October 25, 2007 at 2:23 pm

I hereby declare Diacanu's term "rambling bullshittery" an ephiphany. ;)

58. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81952 by Lauregon on October 25, 2007 at 12:47 pm

consider it an unexpected but delicious brain orgasm sourced in your own body chemistry - Lauregon

What a delightful description:-). Thank you and I will use it if I may. - Veronique

Thank you! I'd be honored.

59. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81940 by Lauregon on October 25, 2007 at 12:28 pm

The population of Rancho Bernardo is around 40,000 and we lost over 500 homes. - Sinbad

The SoCal fires are horrific. It was a perfect storm of awful conditions. Pictures in the paper today showed huge swaths of utter devastation, with an isolated house here and there appearing intact. Those owners might be tempted to believe that "God" willed the fires, but deliberately spared their homes, and allowed the rest to burn to the ground. What an awful "God" that would be.

60. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81917 by Lauregon on October 25, 2007 at 11:47 am

#81589

Consider again the falling of an apple. Science discovers that the falling of the apple can be described by specific scientific laws. As we saw in post 409 (#81038) above, the naturalist believes that the same laws not only describe that falling but actually make the apple fall this way, whereas the theist believes that God's will makes the apple fall this way. - Dianelos

#81602

Let me give a parable to illustrate this: Suppose George suffers some serious misfortune in his life and he thinks about what caused it. There are two possible answers to choose from: One, that it was an accident, and two, that a friend of his betrayed him. - Dianelos

There's another very obvious answer: George may be a theist and decide that God inescapably willed the misfortune to happen, just as theists believe God wills apples to fall. George could then embark on a long period of misery and questioning, moaning, "Why me, what did I do to deserve this, how did I offend "God?" etc., etc., etc.."

So clearly, the effects of a belief on one's well-being are not irrelevant when one decides a question, and becomes crucial when the data is ambiguous and the question cannot be decided on them alone. - Dianelos

There's always "God" to assign cause to. One can then feel cursed and guilty and try to atone for being sinful. Another possibility is that one can suck it up and believe that whatever happens, God's will is always perfect, despite appearances to the contrary. Once can decide, for example, as happened recently in Brazil, that a child lost in the jaguar and snake infested jungle for eleven days, who then was found a mile from home, was led to rescuers by "God."

(BTW, Dianelos, your George story wasn't a "parable").

61. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81527 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 9:47 pm

On the topic of Fijian cannibalism, let's not forget the Christian eucharist which involves the ritual eating/drinking of the body and blood of Christ.

62. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81453 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 6:56 pm

As someone who once experienced a profound numinous experiences, I'll offer a comment in response to the young man who near the end of the debate asked Hitchens to comment about such a situation: 30 years after my numinous experience, I consider it to have been the result of brain chemicals. My experience sent me running back to church(es) where I searched passionately and diligently for years for the "God" I believed had chosen me for something very, very special. My advice today to those who might have such an experience: consider it an unexpected but delicious brain orgasm sourced in your own body chemistry---and move on. Leave "God" and church out of it.

63. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81381 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Oh, I see. If you mean "condone of" in the sense of "agree with" or "approve" then surely it's not like God agreed with Jesus' torture and crucifixion – surely nobody in their right minds thinks that, do they? How could God agree with violence done to anybody? - Dianelos

Oops. There goes the entire doctrine of salvation from "God's" wrath by means of Jesus' vicarious atonement, i.e., the whole substance of Christian orthodoxy. Not to mention Jesus' threats of eternal punishment for non-belief in and non-compliance with his teachings.

64. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81196 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 11:45 am

Even if you could prove beyond a photon of a shadow of a doubt religion made people more moral, it still wouldn't offer up any proof of it being TRUE.

What you'd have at best, is a noble lie.
But a noble lie is still a fucking lie.

And I'm saying religion isn't EVEN a noble lie.

In fact, I scoff at the whole notion of noble lies.

That's neocon bullshit. - Diacanu

Diacanu whacks the ball right out of the park.

65. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81192 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 11:37 am

I don't see any particular difference as far as both theism and atheism being worldviews about objective reality goes. I suspect you see a difference because you assume or believe that all theistic descriptions of objective reality are "imagination", "deluded", "wishful thinking", "hypothetical", "convoluted", "fantasy", "inescapably obviously false", and whatnot – but what you assume or believe is irrelevant to the fact that both theism and atheism represent worldviews about how objective reality is. And so they are directly comparable. And my thesis is that when one seriously studies what the best versions of both worldviews actually say, and compares them one to the other under the same criteria, it becomes inescapably obvious that theism is much more reasonable than atheism. - Dianelos

Well, we see how you've dealt with the parable of the talents, that is, by fabricating a teddy bear from a bloody shroud.

66. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #81187 by Lauregon on October 24, 2007 at 11:16 am

This is a parable, Lauregon. A parable is not supposed to be understood literally but metaphorically, that's why we call it a parable. - Dianelos

Yes, it's supposed to be a parable. Why mundane advice about using one's innate talents would require such elaborate obfuscation remains a mystery. One might wonder from whom the ho-hum advice was being concealed.

Above you are suggesting that this parable teaches that God loves money, and in post #80613 in the Lennox thread you suggest it teaches that God wants us to love money :-P

What I said was that this parable purports to describe the kingdom of heaven, then goes on to paint a hideous vignette of what happened to a terrified servant who didn't serve the demands of his thieving, rapacious, and murderous master---and to others who understandably despised the master. What I didn't say is that many theists I've encountered have argued that the master in the story represents "God." You appear to be among them.

What can I say, I find that's really an extremely warped understanding of what I find a perfectly clear parable which teaches that we should actively invest the opportunities we have in our life to increase in virtue – to create the treasure that no thief can steal and no moth destroy. - Dianelos

The highly detailed and bloody fabric of the parable doesn't support such a banal understanding. There is no corollary whatsoever to virtue in the story. You can come to such an understanding only by tossing out the contents of the story and inserting an invention.

But we are all free to understand the gospel message any way we like. - Dianelos

Clearly demonstrating the folly of taking seriously the claims of humans positing personal knowledge of the mind of "God."

As they say somewhere, let those who have eyes see, and those who have ears hear. - Dianelos

What's to be seen here is a clear example of the process by which you've invented your personal ontology and theology.

67. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80897 by Lauregon on October 23, 2007 at 11:52 am

But I think Christ would object to me or them not using our reason to its fullest capacity. (Lauregon, if you're reading this, you'll see one more application of the Parable of the Talents.)- Dianelos

As I have shown in the Lennox thread, what the Parable of the Talents teaches is that the job of servants is to serve the demands of avaricious murderous masters, and that if they don't, they may be slaughtered for failure to comply. That some theists extract from that story a moral about using one's personal talents simply shows that theists will take any opportunity to invent their reality by ignoring the obvious---but I do thank you for referring to it in this thread. ;)

There's one truth out there; I am sure this is something we can all safely agree with. Very few people and certainly no faithful theist would ever argue that it's best not to search for truth to the utmost of our capacity. - Dianelos

I agree that a good place for you to start searching for truth would be by reading the Parable of the Talents (or the minas, the gold coins, the three servants, or whichever word the publisher uses) to see what the story actually says, instead of accepting the treacly Sunday School lesson that blitheringly white-washes it into a precious story about maximizing one's innate talents. It's a hideous story and it's infantile to blandly pretend otherwise.

68. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80889 by Lauregon on October 23, 2007 at 11:19 am

Sure, as is any other worldview about how objective reality is, including atheism.- Dianelos

False equation. I don't have to imagine that I've burned my hand if I've burned my hand. I do have to imagine there's a "God" person who orchestrates the universe and is fixated on the details of my daily life and the lives of all other humans on the planet. The theist and non-theist worldviews are not equal in terms of what is invented, however much you wish it were so.

The question is which worldview makes more sense. - Dianelos

Dealing with what's this-worldly knowable and experiential makes much more sense than constructing convoluted scenarios about hypothetical supernatural could-bes. If it were not so, every shared hallucination and fantasy would have to be given equal weight as "reality," and insanity would be the result of such "reality" overload. If the day comes on earth in which it becomes inescapably obvious to all that a "God" person orchestrates the universe and concerns itself with the daily lives of humans, then will be time enough for non-theists to incorporate such a being into the framework of human reality.

69. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80865 by Lauregon on October 23, 2007 at 8:40 am

The point is that some widely admired ethical precepts, such as that we should love our enemies, do not even make sense in a non-religious understanding of reality, so at least these precepts have their origin in religion. - Dianelos

Religion being a human invention, does not mean that a supernatural "God" is actually the source of ethics, but convincing people otherwise may make social groups easier to control, which concern, after all, lies at the heart of your ontological argument, revealed when you've warned of possible unforeseen consequences in the abandonment of religion.

70. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80861 by Lauregon on October 23, 2007 at 8:27 am

According to theism on the other hand, objective reality consists of or is centered in a person who is perfectly good (namely "God"), and thus theism allows for the existence of objective morality on that basis. - Dianelos

Conveniently leaving aside the fact that the claim that there is a "God" and that such "God" is "perfectly good" is merely an assertion. The fact that what happens on earth is often hideous then had to be explained by the asserters, who solved it by inventing the categories "evil" and "Satan."

Bottom line, theism is a human invention.

71. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80719 by Lauregon on October 22, 2007 at 6:58 pm

And I need not mention that the invasion of Iraq, which I understand Hitchens has always supported, has already resulted in the death of about half a million civilians and has destroyed the life of millions more. - Dianelos

A war demanded by theist George W Bush who has claimed Jesus as his favorite philosopher, and who claims to pray to God daily for guidance, and whose heavily theist administration reportedly holds daily prayer sessions in the White House. Which war-president adminstration is heartily supported by evangelical Christians.

Yes, Hitchens supports the war. I despise that in the man. Nonetheless, his non-theist arguments echo my own views regarding theism.

72. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80718 by Lauregon on October 22, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Some people come to it right away, seeing theism as ridiculous on its face. Others come to it after a process of belief eroding into unbelief. - Lauregon

Did you come about it by the right way or the eroding way? - BlueJay

I wrote, "right away," not "right way." But since you asked, my way was the process of eroding into unbelief---over decades.

73. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80678 by Lauregon on October 22, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Could we agree that atheism (of the kind of Hitch) is a set of logical arguments an conclusions based on history and other data (like criticism of holy books)? - BlueJay

We can agree that atheism is a rejection of the claims of the theist belief system. Some people come to it right away, seeing theism as ridiculous on its face. Others come to it after a process of belief eroding into unbelief.

74. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80675 by Lauregon on October 22, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Atheism is a system of non-belief regarding God or gods. - Bluejay

More accurately, atheism is usually the result of finding theism to be a patched together, dishonest, man-made construct. Theism is essentially a consumer product. To choose not to buy a consumer product is simply the not-buying of a consumer product. It doesn't require a system.

75. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #80662 by Lauregon on October 22, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Yes, the interviewer was very persistent but that's his job. He HAD to voice the arguments that are commonly used to counter Dawkins because he wanted Dawkins to answer these counterclaims - I for my part think that is perfectly reasonable.
Why would you blame him for challenging Dawkins on his positions? It's what this TV format is supposed to do. - Thor

If theists had all along been given this same attack-style TV interview concerning the claims of theism, there might not have been a need for Dawkins' book.



(I'm sorry if this pretty obvious point has already been made; I haven't finished reading the entire thread).

76. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80620 by Lauregon on October 22, 2007 at 10:50 am

But if we're able to sit in judgment over religion, we don't actually need it to guide us. We've got our judgment. - Dr Benway

Home run.

77. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80613 by Lauregon on October 22, 2007 at 10:26 am

I don't think the teaching concerning the lilies of the field contradicts the Parable of Talents, but rather that it says the same thing: That we shouldn't be afraid but should live according to our true nature - Dianelos

As servants to despotic masters? IOW, suck it up?

and make use of our intrinsic goodness without worrying about the future. - Dianelos

As servants to despotic masters who slaughter those who don't serve their purposes adequately.

The lilies of the field passage is part of a string of teachings in the Sermon On The Mount advocating the renunciation of the pursuit of wealth, including, "No man can serve two masters...he cannot serve both God and mammon." The Parable of the Talents directly contradicts those teachings contained in the Sermon On The Mount.

Now it is evident that your and my reading of the gospels is quite different. In all I read, including the gospels, I assume the writer had some understanding and I try to discover it. - Dianelos

I believe that practice is called "proof-texting" and/or "cherry-picking." Those are the techniques used by fundamentalists to "prove" the "inerrancy" of the Bible. You use it to "prove" the "perfection" of "God."

It seems you assume that the gospels are evil so try to find exactly in what way it is so. - Dianelos

I used to read the gospels as you apparently do. There was a lot of blah-blah-blah-blah-blah-blah, and then familiar Sunday School words would suddenly pop out along with the echoing voices of the teachers and the ministers who had already presented and interpreted those particular words, then it was back again to blah-blah-blah-blah-
blah-blah. Finally, one day I began reading what was actually written. Amazing to see what was surrounding the precious Sunday School words.

Now suppose that the gospels include both good and bad - who do you think gains more from reading them? - Dianelos

Given the parable in question, it appears to be powers and principalities who gain more, by having "God" clearly on the side of wealth and power, while the servant class is taught to look for for solace and reward in heaven.

I who search for the good, or you who search for the bad? - Dianelos

Given that the parable in question begins by saying what follows describes the kingdom of heaven, and what follows is an injunction for terrified, tyrannized servants to help fill the coffers of a greedy, despotic, murderous master, and given that the parable is supposed to be the teaching of "God" himself, I'd say that reading that parable merely as a sweet little teaching about using one's gifts is a case of being willfully blind---and it seems to explain a lot about how you've arrived at your ontology, one which you're working overtime in trying to get non-theists to accept as depicting "reality."

using strawmen more often than not taken from a literal reading of the Bible (as if theism entails the literal truth of the Bible). - Dianelos

Isn't it odd that the creeds and articles of Christian faith were formed from literally- understood scriptures: Original sin committed by the first created humans necessitated a divine savior born of a virgin, a vicarious atonement, a resurrection, resulting in the salvation of all who believe in these actual historical events. Ah, but that's not real theism, Dianelos says. Theism is what Dianelos the Idealist says it is. Stay tuned.

78. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80378 by Lauregon on October 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I was truck by something else he sad: "The key to our domination of the planet is culture, and the key to culture is religion". He means that the key to the evolution of culture is religion- Dianelos

Are you certain that's what he meant? The Biblical "God" handing dominion over the earth to his mud and bone people along with the command for them to subdue it, has been cited over and over and over again by countless critics as the primary reason for the domination mentality that's led this planet to the brink of collapse. People religiously assuming that a book contains the very word of "God" has created this situation, along with a ship-load of other ignominious beliefs and practices. The idea that humans know the mind of a "God" they assume exists has been the deadly path to this culture of domination.

so maybe Dawkins should ponder this issue: even if religion is in fact wrong the idea to try to make away with religion may be a very bad idea indeed, because with it we would be removing a key element of the evolution of our culture too with unpredictable repercussions. - Dianelos

Continuing on with the conceit that humans know the mind of a "God" person doesn't seem a necessarily wise concept given that it's proved to be so disastrous in so many ways, not the least of which way has been the matter of the belief that humans have a mandate from "God" to dominate and subdue the earth.

Even if one is a naturalist I think it makes more sense to argue for the removal of the various negative effects of religion, rather than of religion itself. - Dianelos

Who would get to decide what the new and improved religion would consist of, and what would the selection be based on?

But this implies that all our ideas about good or evil (including our judgment that the automata in our simulation evolve ethical behavior) are inventions. - Dianelos

The idea that there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-powerful, omniscient "God" who is "perfect," necessitated the category of "evil." There had to be a satisfactory explanation for the human experience of imperfect and often awful human life on earth. It couldn't be the fault of a "perfect God."

There is nothing really good or evil; and the logical implication is clearly that one shouldn't then really care about good or evil in the same way that one shouldn't care about anything that doesn't really exist. - Dianelos

What is the 'right' way to care about good and evil?

79. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80371 by Lauregon on October 21, 2007 at 1:41 pm

No, I don't. People should not shy away from questions about what they exactly mean. - Dianelos

Then it's definitely high time for you to describe the attributes of the "God" person you believe in, and the actual ways in which it functions benevolently in human lives.

80. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80198 by Lauregon on October 20, 2007 at 3:36 pm

To me, this betrays the fact that Lennox assumes that the Origin of Species is somehow equivalent to a holy-text ...an Atheist Bible of some sort. -monojohnny

Sounds right. In the same vein: theists apparently assuming non-theists think of Dawkins as "God."

81. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80178 by Lauregon on October 20, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Because they do not think critically, and they moreover implicitly trust the opinion of other people they fancy are authoritative. Which, as far as I am concerned, is the same reason why many people are impressed by TGD. - Dianelos

Your sand-in-the-crotch grudge against Dawkins is absurd. Many people became non-theist entirely without the help of Dawkins---believe it or not. If people don't accept theism's alternative reality, they don't accept it---Dawkins or no. It's really that simple. A caring, human-concerned universe-directing "God" person is not in the least way obvious, and claims that it exists and cares in experiential ways about the daily lives of humans, defies the this-world reality of people who remain or have become unwilling to continue accepting the convoluted double-speak of theist apologists. As for "authoritative," theist reality is authoritarian by its very nature, and your new and improved brand shows no signs whatsoever of being an exception.



As for "alternative realities," Willy the Dishwasher's alternative reality involved the KGB tailing him constantly, day and night. The Very Well-Dressed Matron who lived at the Wm Penn Hotel had an alternative reality, and if you happened to be in the restroom when she was there, you could her conversations with its inhabitants. Then there was Coat Woman who hissed like a snake at the enemies in her alternative reality as she knitted webs in the air with her fingers. Ah, yes, alternative realities. There are lots of 'em.

82. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80088 by Lauregon on October 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm

And they certainly aren't claiming you need to believe in order to be capable of doing right. - Riley

It may be true that not all christians are claiming that, but it is true that many do argue just that. I've experienced the claim many times. Further, carrying the claim to another level, many believers I've encountered have argued that benevolent acts not done in Jesus' name don't "count."

83. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80027 by Lauregon on October 19, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I find the Parable of the Talents quite meaningful: it says that one should not waste one's talents (pun intended :-) That life is not a place for passive pleasure, but a place for active work. - Dianelos

Oddly contradicting another Jesus teaching concerning lilies of the field.

Indeed a place where it pays to take risks for doing good work. The differentiation between servants with many talents and servants with few talents is maybe meant as a recognition of the fact that peoples' capacity for doing good work is not equal to start with. And it says that all should make an effort, including those who have little capacity. - Dianeos

Never mind that the master is a murderous greed-head whom his countrymen despise and fear, and who rules through terror. Never mind that the third servant is terrified out of his wits of the cruel-to-the-bone master. Never mind that the passage begins with Jesus saying, "The kingdom of heaven will be like this..."

However popular it may be, the interpretation of the parable as instruction about the proper use of one's gifts is to rosily ignore the evil that's deeply imbedded in the story and the criminal nature of its primary character who is essentially a tyrant. Such an interpretation is pathetically banal, not to mention it reveals an astonishing blindness to what's actually on the page. Not to mention that the story appears to sanctify and validate the subjection of human beings through the might of oligarchic terrorism.

So, except for the disjointed bit about the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" at the very end, I find that this parable gives a very wise and relevant message indeed. I don't quite understand what's your issue with it. - Dianelos

Wise and relevant message, eh? You take slight issue with the warning of "weeping and gnashing of teeth to come," but cheerfully overlook what the story actually describes: cowed, servile people living under a tyrannous and rapacious master. You also appear to not notice that in Matthew the parable appears as merely one in a long string of senseless disasters and hideous travails Jesus warns his hearers of, essentially for unbelief in him and his message. Further still, in Luke, the parable ends with the murderous master ordering that those countrymen who hated him and opposed his kingship, should to be dragged forth and killed right in front of him.

If this story is "wise and relevant," as you say it is, I wonder exactly what it is you serve.

84. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79841 by Lauregon on October 18, 2007 at 5:27 pm

And, phasmagigas, kudos on your Post #545

85. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79840 by Lauregon on October 18, 2007 at 5:23 pm

As has been pointed out (but is worth repeating) what is really going on here is a desperate attempt to defend what are basically mundane Christian beliefs, little different from those of an average moderate churchgoer. You are dealing with nothing more than this, combined with a pseudo-scientific and pseudo-philosophical framework based on personal standards of wishful thinking and incredulity. The danger is that it all looks very intellectual, but the constant ignoring of counter-arguments shows its fraudulent nature. - steve99

To the core. What's he's defending is the same old cop in the sky. The science-y stuff is just fancy packaging.

86. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79834 by Lauregon on October 18, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Again, in reason one is required to justify one's own ideas, not other peoples'. So if you find something amiss with my idea of God please let me know. But before you use some criterion to criticize my ontological beliefs, please check whether your ontological beliefs pass the same criterion, otherwise it would be a pointless exercise. - Dianelos

I wasn't talking about your ontological ideas when I wrote that fear and hope of reward are what's motivated religious belief throughout the ages.

Ontological arguments obsess theists, not non-theists. - Lauregon

I'd never have guessed this after reading Dawkins's famous and self-declared unanswerable "Ultimate Boeing 747" ontological argument. - Dianelos

Ontology is quite naturally a subject that obsesses theists, particularly you. Theism is the field in which your messianic efforts should be exercised. Non-theists who respond to the ontological claims of theists are, well, simply responding to the ontological claims of theists.

87. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79823 by Lauregon on October 18, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Lauregon (post 482, or #79241):

Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a caring, universe-directing "God" person exists,

I'll do that just after you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an uncaring, universe-directing "physical" mechanism exists ;-) - Dianelos

Absurd response. The salesman is the one who must demonstrate the product. That would be you, Dianelos---and the product would be that caring, universe-directing "God" person. If the salesman can't produce the product, the customer is justified in believing it doesn't exist. The burden rests entirely upon the salesman.

88. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79820 by Lauregon on October 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

My assertion, which should be what we're discussing as it is the thing I believe we disagree about, is that IF there were a God who was responsible for the existence of reasoning beings and in logic itself, there might be a right answer to questions of morality. - PaulEmecz

Your morality arguments seem to assume the assertion.

89. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79593 by Lauregon on October 17, 2007 at 10:04 pm

This is covered very well in Dennett's superb speech at AAI 07. - steve99

Thanks. I haven't had time to watch it yet, but hope to soon.

90. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79559 by Lauregon on October 17, 2007 at 5:35 pm

But naturalists are so clever they know better than theists what they mean. - Dianelos

What theists "mean" seems to be be whatever a pro-theism conversation requires in the moment.

91. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79557 by Lauregon on October 17, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Indeed: the moral Zeitgeist has slowly but steadily come closer to Jesus' ethics. - Dianelos

Guess it depends upon which ethics of Jesus you're
talking about.

The Parable of the Talents

"For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants [1] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, [2] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. [3] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

92. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79495 by Lauregon on October 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm

CoralRidge Ministries is a politically influential and creepily pernicious bunch.

93. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79491 by Lauregon on October 17, 2007 at 12:41 pm

McGrath practices what I call bait-and-switch Deism: fall back to non-supernatural arguments, try to get people to sign on to those, and then advance back to the personal God when you think the coast is clear. - Alentar

Standard Operating Procedure. Bleah!

I'd like to read more of your views on theists embracing post-modernism.

94. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79481 by Lauregon on October 17, 2007 at 11:48 am

Well, let's think about this issue dispassionately and using our own heads. We can all read in the gospels about the ethics that the founder of Christianity taught. - Dianelos

Try, for example, the Parable of the Talents, especially the version in Luke.

95. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79272 by Lauregon on October 16, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Don't you see that's a very primitive way of thinking? - Dianelos

Belief in the resurrection of the dead is a primitive way of thinking. In any case, at issue is your apparent belief that your ontological beliefs are so remarkably special and better than those that already exist that we should look to you as an authority. You appear to suffer from acute hubris and a bad case of messianic fervor.

Don't you have some olives to cure, or some oil to press?

96. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79249 by Lauregon on October 16, 2007 at 3:12 pm

similarly I am here not talking of a fearsome God. You know, the ones who postulate an ontological hypothesis are the ones who define what they mean. So, again, I am not talking about your understanding of God, or of other peoples' understanding of God (there is a whole menagerie of such hypotheses as there is a whole menagerie of naturalistic hypotheses). I am defending my understanding of God. - Dianelos

What binds and has bound people to religious belief was the issue, not your idea of God. Fear and promise of reward are those bindings.

So feel free to argue against my ontological hypothesis, especially if you can find any argument to show that in some place it does not work as well as your ontological hypothesis, but the constant creating of strawmen is a waste of time. - Dianelos

You inventing your own personal version of "God" and you pounding the keys trying to browbeat non-theists into embracing it is what's a waste of time. Ontological arguments obsess theists, not non-theists. You may as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

"Implies fundamental justice?" Says who, with what factual knowledge? - Lauregon

Says I who define the ontological hypothesis I am willing to defend, especially in comparison to naturalistic ontological hypotheses. - Dianelos

Have I mentioned before how many theist writings I've absorbed over the decades? Sorry, Dianelos, Your personal authority simply isn't enough to confirm your assumption.

As for "factual knowledge" probably you think that naturalism is built on factual knowledge; if so please present one example of it; if not you can't criticize theism for failing to do what naturalism doesn't either. - Dianelos

You're the one attempting to prove that an unseen
"God" person exists. The burden resides with you. You really should try to make peace with the fact that I spent decades as a theist and finally gave it up as fraudulent. You seem to have the idea that non-theists came to their non-theism lightly. I did not, as I've mentioned before. As I see it, if a "God" personwanted me to know with certainty that the "God" person existed, there's been plenty of time for that to have happened. It hasn't, it didn't.

Where is the fundamental justice for those who are, for example, maimed and slaughtered in natural disasters, or, for another, born with hideous defects? - Lauregon

In the afterlife of course. But if reality is such as naturalists believe, namely one where there is nothing after death, then no justice is possible. - Dianelos

Frankly, I don't see that justice in an afterlife makes up for hideous lifetimes created by an almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing, omniscient "God." Injustice created by humans, is bad enough. Created or permitted by "God," it's worse than reprehensible.

Surely the "God" person itself is not exempt from personal consequences for cataclysms spawned by "God's" personal creation, right? - Lauregon

That's a valid point I think. Some theists answer that this explains the suffering of Christ. In other words that in Christ God too suffered His/er creation. Beyond Christianity and its dogma of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ I'd like to answer thus: God is not an extra person out there somewhere; God is the whole of objective reality in which we ourselves exist. So all pain (but also all joy) we feel is felt by God too. - Dianelos

I've always found that a vacuous concept.

Those interested in thinking about "ontological truth" would be theists, not atheists - Lauregon

When atheists say "no gods exist" they are making an ontological proposition which they believe is true. - Dianelos

I'd call that a statement dismissing the ontological proposition which claims gods do exist.

97. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79241 by Lauregon on October 16, 2007 at 2:49 pm

The best solution, - Dianelos

Here you are, Dianelos, pronouncing what is "best" for everyone, as if you possessed God's mind and actually know what's best for the world. Modesty truly is not your strength.

and that's something thoughtful theists and naturalists in the US could agree on, is to teach ontology at schools and to seriously discuss there the best ontological theories there are, and how they all are compatible with science. Young people will be then be free to make their own decision about which ontological theory strikes them as more reasonable, and make that decision on a good foundation of knowledge. At the very least young people will learn to recognize the fallacious (i.e. unsustainable in reason) elements of both popular theism and popular naturalism, which again at the very least will help them avoid dogmatism and fanaticism. And the same should happen in Europe, where young people normally only get religious instruction at school, so I think that here naturalism should be taught alongside religious ontologies too. - Dianelos

Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a caring, universe-directing "God" person exists, there's no point in teaching ontology in schools as a required curriculuum. In any case, as I've said before, your mission field should be theists, rather than non-theists---and you should find the courage to choose a new title for your guy in the sky because you're peddling an ever-ambiguously amorphous, custom-crafted deity of your very own personal design, which apparently, no one perceives but you.

98. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79226 by Lauregon on October 16, 2007 at 2:13 pm

No: I never claimed such. In order to have a meaningful discussion one is supposed to comment on the other person's ideas, and not construct a strawman to respond to. If you wish to respond to my posts then please respond to my posts, not to a post your model of a bogeyman theist might have written. - Dianelos

You've since commented to another poster [#433] that you don't think you mix your ideas about "God" with a lot of mythology and superstition. I strongly suspect you think you mix no superstition or mythology in your ideas about "God." If you do engage in such mixing, please let us know which ideas you see as incorporating superstition and mythology---for clarification's sake. As for the rest of your ideas, perhaps you can tell us by what means you know that they are free of contaminants.

99. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78943 by Lauregon on October 15, 2007 at 1:38 pm

It helps to have a definitive statement of the beliefs of the religious. Presumably, the Archbishop would agree with the following:

"Christian life is lived in relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and in common with other Christians in the church seeking to deepen that relationship and to follow the way that Jesus taught.

For Christians God is understood and known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

…Father… God is love, caring for creation and for every human being as God's beloved child.

…Son… God is as he has revealed himself to be in the historical person of Jesus Christ. Jesus' life, death and resurrection holds the key to knowing and loving God, and to making sense of life, before and after death.

…and Holy Spirit… God is alive, loving and active today, inspiring faith, justice and truth, sustaining the life of the world, giving spiritual gifts to the church and bearing his spiritual fruit in the world - changed lives and a transformed society."

That's from the C of E website (front page). - Myryama

I don't mean to be abrupt or brutish, but really, that text is indeterminate fluff that lacks real meaning. It's preferable, perhaps, to the traditional Anglican creeds Shuggy helpfully posted, but actually means nothing tangible.

100. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78938 by Lauregon on October 15, 2007 at 1:15 pm

But I can point out why in general people fall for mythological beliefs: they don't check on their beliefs but feel cocksure about them, and typically they ridicule or trivialize the ideas of those who disagree with them instead of seriously engaging with them. - Dianelos

Here's another reason: the cocksure start with the conclusion that the unseen beings they believe in
are real, and bond with others who believe as they do, and quickly become willing to torture everything that contradicts their belief in the unseen into confirmation of the unseen. Voila! The unseen is REAL!