Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by epeeist


951. Fleabytes

Comment #151250 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 10:14 am

Comment #151242 by clodhopper

Bring on the LHC I say!
Can't operate yet - the lawyers need to sort it out first - http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/823924.aspx

952. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151247 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 10:10 am

Comment #151235 by Bonzai


You shouldn't be too literal in reading my posts. I am not a fundamentalist.
[AOL]Me neither[/AOL] (yeah, I know it isn't quite right).

I find this attempt to put a single label on people intensely irritating. I suspect to someone like scooternyc I am a "liberal fascist", as a lapsed member of a Trotskyist organisation who has worked for a British bank I would hate to think what my former colleagues would label me as.

People are (mostly) incredibly complex and multi-dimensional. Reducing them to a single label looses an enormous amount of information about them and, as I think Dr. Benway as said, says more about you than about them.

953. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151232 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #151215 by Bonzai


Riley summarized it better than I can. The moderates are Bayesians.
So how do they estimate their prior probabilities?

Is Plantinga's approach to the truth of Christianity using Bayes statistics any better than that of MPhil's induction about the closedness of the universe?

954. Fleabytes

Comment #151194 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 8:58 am

Comment #151161 by kaiserkriss


Different languages, even culture have different senses of humour. English comedy is quite different from North American comedy, one can be quite subtle and cynical, the other quite brash.
After the inimitable Charlotte Green corpsed this morning on BBC Radio 4 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/audio/2008/mar/28/charlotte.green) I was led to http://www.johnners.com/goofs.html - try the one about Michael Holding and the last one with Jonathon Agnew.

And of course - http://www.templestark.com/brps/TheBricklayersStory.mp3

955. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151153 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 8:03 am

Comment #151150 by irate_atheist


Wow. You've uncovered wooter's long lost uncle.
Wooter is happily posting on another thread, claiming that now Ben Stein is on the case the theory of evolution (or ET as he prefers to call it) is on the run.

Whoever would have thought it, a third rate actor waffles on about IDiocy and the whole of the world's evolutionary biologists will be out of a job.

956. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #151149 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 7:59 am

Comment #151145 by Quetzalcoatl

They're by no means the only ones who think like this- check out the views of this preacher who has come out in defence of them.

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080328/WDH0101/803280742/1581/WDHnews
Try the web page of slippery Eells - http://www.AmericasLastDays.com. Rapture ready as you could imagine.

Personally I liked the disclaimer and the link giving reasons why some of the prophecies have been delayed...

957. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151061 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 5:07 am

Comment #151052 by Bonzai


Maybe I am not reading carefully enough but I really don't find him to be that unreasonable. His main points seem to be that 1)it is possible there is "truth" inaccessible to the scientific method and logic and that 2) in practice science is influenced by human factors (peer reviewed may not be fool proof).
If by truth you mean something that corresponds to the facts then I am not sure that such things do lie outside methodological naturalism in principle. In practice the problems may be simply too hard or too remote for us to test our theories.

MPhil will tell you that all observations are theory-laden, so yes science is influenced by human factors. I have just been reading a paper by Kathleen Okruhlik which points out a lot of the gender assumptions in biology and anthropology for instance. Reading Duhem and Quine on underdetermination indicates that deciding between rival theories may not be as easy or as clear-cut as anticipated.

958. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151004 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 2:00 am

Comment #151001 by MPhil

Some supposed attributes of the Christian God are inherently or mutually contradictory... therefore nothing that supposedly has these attributes could exist.
Which leaves it open to believers to claim that said god does not have these contradictory attributes, in which case one has to ask whether this is really their god in the first place.

The other alternative is to make some nebulous claim as to how the contradictions could be overcome or your objections are invalid, which means they have actually got to make some real arguments.

959. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151000 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 1:19 am

Comment #150994 by craigyk


Sweet, let's deal. How about 80/20? The number means nothing. I was just trying to point out that religious people can use a lot of the same circumstantial evidence we do, but arrive at a different conclusion, and we can't prove their conclusion wrong.
Of course we can't prove that the Christian god does not exist.

However, in the same way one can point out that Zeus, Thor and Atum cannot be proven not to exist. Believers in a god have three things to show - that some kind of deity exists, that this deity is their particular incarnation and that no other gods exist.

960. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150910 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Comment #150892 by sleas


Not a bad article from someone decended from apes. I am still trying to teach my monkey to type. He is not catching on very quickly. Does anyone have any suggestions. Maybe he will get better in a couple thousand years.
Err, he wouldn't be called "wooter" by any chance would he?

961. Fleabytes

Comment #150909 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Comment #150828 by Diacanu


Lemme know when the topic gravitates towards cakes and pies.
We already ate those - see http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page142#150724

962. Fleabytes

Comment #150732 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 10:31 am

Comment #150726 by Steve Zara

"Photoshopped" (apparently, this is traditional on the "net")
You only have to believe, then you will see the cake in all its glory.

Oh and Photoshop? Spit, the GIMP or Krita are what people who have computers with real operating systems use.

963. Fleabytes

Comment #150729 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 10:28 am

Comment #150727 by Quetzalcoatl


if wedding cakes are anti-aphrodisiac, what do Christmas puddings do?
Natural fruity goodness in both cakes and puddings. No problems with either.

It's the cyanide in the marzipan that causes all the problems. Now a nice piece of Wensleydale, that is totally different. Brandy butter with the mincepies and Christmas pudding of course.

964. Fleabytes

Comment #150724 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 10:16 am

Comment #150713 by Steve Zara

I am trying to find a picture.

I am afraid that this is all that is left of this year's batch of Christmas cakes - http://www.flickr.com/photos/10983076@N08/2366101643/

I do have some Christmas puddings left though :-D

965. Fleabytes

Comment #150697 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #150689 by Richard Morgan

No! Just wedding cake prepared by epeeist!
I make a very good rich fruit cake, but it has to be made well in advance and is not to be covered with almond paste and royal icing (which, I am convinced are the anti-aphprodisiacs).

Instead it should eaten with a nice piece of cheese, preferably Wensleydale.

966. Fleabytes

Comment #150671 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #150663 by annabanana

*strikes marriage and monogamous relationships off of "to do" list*

Just don't eat the wedding cake - it has permanent anti-aphrodisiac properties.

967. Fleabytes

Comment #150533 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 4:31 am

Comment #150529 by irate_atheist

The Iliad is infinitely superior to the Bible. Your god loses once again. So, based on your latest criteria, the odds are:
Could I ask you to adjust these. Väinämöinen from the Kalevala should be on there. It isn't the best known mythos but it has the advantage of coherence and consistency, something you can't say about other holy books.

968. Two More Fleas

Comment #150498 by epeeist on March 27, 2008 at 2:47 am

Comment #150440 by clearmind

I have been in Cambridge this week. One of the places I took the parents of my daughter's boyfriend around was Trinity college.

As you wander around you can see pictures and statues of some of their famous alumni, Newton being the most well known. Others include Francis Bacon, J.J. Thompson, Eddington, Clerk Maxwell, Rayleigh, Frisch, Kapitsa, de Morgan, Ramunjan, Betrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, James Frazer, Tennyson, Byron, Vaughn-Williams and many more, including a total of 32 Nobel Prize winners.

All of these have added to human understanding and enjoyment in fields as far apart as mathematics and music, anthropology and physics.

I then come back to the inane witterings of wooter who seems to have read nothing and intends to avoid reading anything that might trouble his beliefs.

To quote a poet who went to both Oxford and Cambridge:

"The University is a Paradise, Rivers of Knowledge are there, Arts and Sciences flow from thence. Counsell Tables are Horti conclusi (as it is said in the Canticles) Gardens that are walled in, and they are Fontes signati, Wells that are sealed up; bottomless depths of unsearchable Counsels there."

For goodness sake wooter, abandon the bigotry and quest for ignorance. Go read a book (apart from the bible), you might like it.

969. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149812 by epeeist on March 26, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #149801 by heafnerj


Only in America....where child abuse is defended on religious grounds.

Not quite - http://www.tamesideadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1026293_savage_attack_on_boy_by_imam

Small slap on the wrist. Replace "imam" by "teacher" and think of what the judge would have said.

970. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149664 by epeeist on March 26, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #149662 by Corylus

Right, I am yet again marking Clearmind as a troll.
You and me both. Clearmind wasn't his first login name of course, he originally started as "wooter", though I think "Pooter" might have been better.

971. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149139 by epeeist on March 25, 2008 at 7:08 am

Comment #149134 by Galactor


You cannot attribute atheism as a means to any end. It's nonsensical.

[snip]

Nor does it make sense to conclude that he performed terrible acts because he was an atheist, no more so to conclude that he did so because he had a moustache.

I think you are wrong on this. Assume that Stalin was an atheist and believed that any other position was wrong. It is perfectly possible to imagine him attempting to bend others to atheism and to kill them if they would not espouse this.

However, in such a case one would have to show that it was specifically this belief that caused the action. Otherwise all you have is a fallacy of composition as Dr. Benway illustrated.

972. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149127 by epeeist on March 25, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #149080 by Bonzai


Ancient Middle Eastern languages were not direct and literal like English, they used a lot allusions and metaphores in a way that were weaved into normal speech seamlessly.
Middle English, Norse and Icelandic literature are the same, kennings would be one example.

We have had a similar attempt at discussion with Artful Dodger. What is literal, what is metaphorical, how do you tell the difference between the two and how is the authority to declare which is which granted? He has done his usual post-and-run at this point. You have added another - what does the metaphor mean?

The difficulty I have is the moving of the line as the needs of other arguments require. Thinking theists are happy to declare Genesis symbolic until one asks what therefore did Jesus die for, at which point Adam and Eve seem to acquire some level of literalness again.They want to eat their cake and have it.

973. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #149025 by epeeist on March 25, 2008 at 1:39 am

Let's be slightly careful here. At Easter I can normally get to a performance of one of the world's most sublime pieces of music the "St. Matthew Passion". I certainly wouldn't want to see music, art and literature dismissed as "empty", even that stemming from religion.

A question - let us suppose theology did disappear from universities, there would still be a need for some of the things it discusses. Could these be completely dispersed into social anthropology, history, sociology and psychology?

974. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148832 by epeeist on March 24, 2008 at 2:55 am

Comment #148754 by clearmind


Hi mr Dawkins

Shudder - clear thinker and clear mind on the same thread.

Teh wooter (aka clearmind) is still trying to convince us that wolves and dogs are of two different "kinds" and therefore cannot interbreed (at least that is what I think he is trying to say).

Mind you he is still convinced there is a "Birmingham Palace" in the UK, that the sun runs on oil and angels are making the earth rotate.

975. Two More Fleas

Comment #148806 by epeeist on March 24, 2008 at 1:24 am

Comment #148755 by clearmind


To reverend
I have no hard feeling on you though you are losing it at times by insulting. I don't why but I feel something logical in you reverend, that's why I made

Well at least he had it to lose in the first place.

I am going down to Cambridge today. I might see if my daughter (a "senior" member, much to her distress) can get me into Darwin college.

976. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148805 by epeeist on March 24, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #148801 by lievemebe


Dr. Dawkins assessment is consistent with the Expelled trailer and opinions of other observers of the film. If the release is as bad as the preview it will be both a blight on the documentary film industry and a severe blow to the credibility of creationists.
So how does one go about making nominations for the "Razzies"?

977. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #148410 by epeeist on March 23, 2008 at 1:33 am

Comment #14895 by Sailnsouth


Again back to simplicity, The Christians have already denied a Buddhist, Egyptian, Hindu, or animist god. Atheists (and TGD) just eliminate one more. The logic in that is unassailable.
Small disagreement:

Christians have denied that gods such as Odin, Zeus and Osiris exist, but there again nobody much believes in them any more.

They are also happy to discard smaller religions, like Wicca, that do not have a large influence in the world.

However, with religions that do have an influence like Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism they make alliances.

978. Fleabytes

Comment #148282 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Comment #148274 by Steve Zara


I am not talking about phelps, and I am not talking about Canada. In the UK we have Bishops directly trying to influence politicians and the government.
A case in point - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7309445.stm

The demand for a free vote is a smokescreen. The aim seems to be for Catholic MPs to vote the way the church wants, regardless of the views of their constituents.

979. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #148201 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 10:22 am

Comment #148194 by Steve Zara

Actually Steve you missed the easy one - the results were not statistically significant. Which is what it says in the paper.

980. Fleabytes

Comment #148145 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 7:25 am

Comment #148142 by BillySands


I probably know the answer, but did David ever understand the set of gods business let alone reply to it?
You do know the answer.

981. Fleabytes

Comment #148144 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 7:23 am

Comment #148136 by Mark Smith


Why not do as many more liberal Christians do and say it is not making a historical assertion in this respect and 'merely' is saying something metaphorical about what it is to be human?
Cos it doesn't sound quite so convincing Jesus being crucified for a metaphor - you need Ningizzida the talking snake Lord of the Tree of Life (sorry about that, wrong mythology), the wrath of god and all that.

982. Fleabytes

Comment #148118 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #148114 by BillySands


It is your presuppositions and what you are prepared to accept as evidence that makes you think the Illiad is fiction. You just have to accept that it is true first.
But that is the problem isn't it. We accept that we cannot prove that god does not exist (or to put it a different way, that the class of personal gods is empty).

The theists who come here and presumptuously call their god "God" have a major problem. Not only do they have to show that the class of personal gods is not empty, but that it only contains a single member and that single member happens to be their particular deity.

We accept that you can't prove Yahweh does not exist. But we also accept that you can't prove Zeus or Atum do not exist either.

The theists want it both ways, the way you to accept that their deity does not exist without any evidence and that other deities do not, again without evidence.

983. Fleabytes

Comment #148111 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 5:40 am

Comment #148107 by Artful_Dodger


Re "metaphorical" v "Literal" and the difference between the two, one knows by being familiar with the genre, and by not mistaking one genre for another.
That's it? That's your "higher criticism"? I know because I know?

Quick comparison - Illiad, known to be mythological fiction with some historical elements. Looks a lot like the bible. I therefore declare the bible to be mythological fiction with some historical elements.

Since you haven't said who has the authority to declare such a pronouncement I hereby declare myself capable.

984. Fleabytes

Comment #148081 by epeeist on March 22, 2008 at 1:45 am

Comment #147853 by Artful_Dodger


Suffice it to say that a great deal of Old Testament Scripture is couched in poetic language. Metaphor abounds in Biblical poetry just as it abounds in every other kind of poetry. The opening chapters of Genesis can be read as epic poetry. They portray the creation of the universe and of mankind within it almost like a symphony. and so on
As Geoff says "Artfully dodged".

You weren't asked which bits were metaphor and which bits were literal. You were asked how one distinguished between the literal and metaphorical. This you have obviously failed to answer.

You were also asked how one acquires the authority to label parts of a document which is directly or indirectly the word of god "literal" or "metaphorical". You haven't done this either.

985. Fleabytes

Comment #147851 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Comment #147847 by SRWB


I was just thinking the same thing now that Dodgy Art is back............
Me too, after all he promised a response here - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page40#135733

One of the things the post-and-run brigade seem to think is that we suffer from some kind of absence related memory loss. Personally I am waiting for devolved to return, I have some questions about a flood for him. This assumes I get in first, I know Billy Sands wants to ask him something about opsin genes.

986. Fleabytes

Comment #147806 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 9:53 am

Comment #147793 by MPhil


ever heard of Jabberwacky? It can be huge fun for a while.
Definitely saner than wooter...

Could we get Josh just to connect jabberwacky and wooter end to end? They could keep each other happy for years.

987. EXPELLED!

Comment #147751 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 7:35 am

Comment #147736 by aflacgirl84
Can someone tell me how to do the quotes?

Use < blockquote >Text< /blockquote >

But take out the spaces before and after the angle brackets.

988. Fleabytes

Comment #147742 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 7:14 am

Comment #147732 by mlearnedfriend


I do find it interesting that no one doubts the content of the Iliad (written at the end of a long period of oral transmission in song - got that from Melvyn Bragg) yet have extreme doubts over much more reliable ancient documents (EG the Bible). You need to stop treating it like a moral document - that says things you don't agree with -and treat it more as an historical text.
The Illiad is fiction. Nobody claims that Zeus and Hera actually exist or that the pantheon of gods were really supporting opposite sides during the conflict. Nobody claims that the virtues and vices described in the book should form the basis for the morals of current day society or that the priests of Apollo should be invited on to the radio to discuss the embryology bill.

There are obviously some historical elements to the Trojan war, as Schliemann's discovery of Troy demonstrates. However the majority of it is myth.

989. Fleabytes

Comment #147737 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #147731 by Murky


U missed a bit of the quote clod.:)

X is an unknown quantity, spirt is a drip under pressure.
I have heard it as "Ex" - meaning "has been" and "spurt", meaning "drip under pressure".

990. Fleabytes

Comment #147720 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #147710 by sentient

David, forgive me if you have already answered this question (I haven't read all 6,500 posts) but I would be interested to know if you believe the soul enters the embryo at the moment of fertilisation? If not, when does this occur?
An interesting question, given the percentage of embryos that spontaneously abort - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-4728(197007)24:2<241:TIOSA>2.0.CO;2-P

One has to ask when most women recognise that they are pregnant, after one missed period, two, three?

991. Fleabytes

Comment #147715 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #147708 by PlagioClase


A bit like Antony Flew whose father was a Methodist minister. Flew became an atheist in his late teens, but said in his 80s that he now believes in a God. His book (There is no a God) is very useful reading. It was the new discoveries in science, especially biology and astronomy that had the biggest impact on Flew.
Just as a matter of interest PlagioClase seems to be moving here after being pwned on another thread...

992. Fleabytes

Comment #147694 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 6:13 am

Pathfinder - you seem to be quite happy to claim a miracle for something which may have a natural explanation. Are you ever going to respond to my questions in
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page127#147200

993. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147686 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 6:05 am

Comment #147684 by PlagioClase


The assertion 'There is no god' is a theological statement.
However the hypothesis "The class of personal gods is empty" is of course contingently valid, testable and falsifiable.

Just waiting for you to show that there is a consequence of the hypothesis that has been falsified.

And has has been pointed out before - if one cannot prove that Yahweh does not exist, then one similarly cannot prove that Zeus, Odin or Atum do not exist.

994. Two More Fleas

Comment #147656 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 4:42 am

Here is a simple question for you wooter - what are you doing putting messages on this site on Good Friday?

Shouldn't you be spending all your time in church praying to your Jewish cosmic zombie?

995. Fleabytes

Comment #147650 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 4:20 am

Comment #147648 by Steve Zara

Nothing is ever simple in biology.
Bingo!

Yes creationism/ID (they are synonymous) wants religion to be sneaked in under the covers. But the majority of people who discount evolution, climate change, cosmology or particle physics do so because they are looking for simplicity and certainty.

996. Two More Fleas

Comment #147621 by epeeist on March 21, 2008 at 2:07 am

Wooter - the stuff you post is cretinous nonsense. It has been politely rebuffed so many times but you still don't seem to realise it.

You deserve all the expletives that are now being thrown at you. In fact you deserve far more. If you think you are being treated badly can I suggest your verbal diaheria of to http://rantsnraves.org/ or http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/index.php and see how you get treated.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but as has been pointed in many other places you are not entitled to your own facts. And the fact is that evolution happens. It has been seen in the lab and in nature. Screaming nonsense about the Mona Lisa or watches doesn't alter the facts.

The other thing about opinions is that they are cheap. However if you want to learn about a subject it is going to cost you. The people who have responded to you here have research degrees in the subject they discuss, this requires 6 years or more in university. They speak with some authority because of this.

You demonstrate less cognitive ability that some of the 8 year olds my wife teaches science to in the primary department of her school. You might claim a BA and MA but it looks as thought these were bought from the same kind of organisation that Ian Bamlett got his ordination from.

The only reason people now respond to you here is because you are a joke. Not an intellectual joke, a pitiful scatological joke. That, and the fact that it shows the pathetic masturbatory infantalism that is creationism. You are doing our job for us here wooter - you have shown how irrational, bigoted and ignorant and hateful extreme religiosity is.

Take it elsewhere, there's a good chap. You have ceased to be funny or entertaining. You are simply an embarrassment to yourself.

997. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #147409 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 10:04 am

Comment #147406 by Duffguy


I think to give them the same open minded attitude that we expect from them (ie. asking them to question their beliefs, and look into the works of some of the "four horsemen"), then we should by all means read the book.
I started it, couldn't get through more than a few pages at a time. Tried the chapter on science and wasn't sure whether to laugh or weep.

I had steeled myself to actually get down and read it but before I actually did Steve Zara read it and put a review on his blog. Vox Day posted a response but when Steve suggested that they discuss one particular point, rather than all of the arguments that Day had raised it seemed to go quiet.

998. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147394 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 9:12 am

Comment #147380 by al-rawandi


You are simply determined to get rid of the field known as "Theology". Even though this can be a secular, atheistic pursuit. This has more to do with emotion than it does with the field.

More complex than that.

I have two major difficulties with theology. The first is the discussion of topics within its domain as though its grounding is objectively true. The second difficulty is the concomitant assumption that its findings can be used in determining how societies should be organised, what should and should not be taught, what is and what is not moral etc.

So let's say the I want to study the Baha'i concept of God and Progressive Revelation. What field should I study? Why can't I go somewhere and study this notion of god? Somewhere where others gather to study the notion of god and its influence on society.
So where would you put the study the differences between ancient Egyptian religion and Kermetic wicca? Mythology, sociology, anthropology?

I am quite happy to have departments of theology, just lets get rid of the idea that they are discussing ineffable truths and get them more tightly bound to history and anthropology.

999. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147371 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 8:28 am

Comment #147360 by al-rawandi

I can discuss the properties of an imaginary god. The belief in whom spurs people to action. Do you refrain from talking about the properties of Romeo and Juliet? Do you refrain from talking about the characters of a Tom Clancy novel? No. These are forms of literary criticism.
Yes, one can certainly discuss "Romeo and Juliet", it is fiction and one can criticise it as a literary work.

In the same way one can apply the higher criticism to religious texts to establish origins and authors, however I would contend this is more history than theology. One can also look at beliefs, but I would contend this is social anthropology.

Your 5 step program is only relevant when dealing with instantiation of an interventionist god. It is useless and rather absurd when discussing the potential effects of the idea and/or belief in a deity.

The points are valid if the OP is claiming that his particular beliefs should form the basis of the mores of society. Unless he is able to demonstrate the truth of each of these 5 points he is unable to make a sound argument.

1000. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147353 by epeeist on March 20, 2008 at 7:54 am

Comment #147338 by PlagioClase


Who cares? And why do you worry? According to Richard we live in a universe with nothing but 'blind, pitiless indifference'.
However, that doesn't mean we have to be.

So, according to that definition, atheists are theologians too and this is a theological site. I can't imagine that atheists would claim their utterances about God are not 'rational'.
But we don't discuss the properties of gods in the same way we don't discuss the eating habits of invisible garage dragons. We might discuss mechanisms for detecting invisible, non-substantial garage dragons, but sadly none of these has ever been successful. A bit similar to the detection of gods really.

Before you start discussing the properties of your particular god you have to establish:
  1. That the universe was created
  2. That it was created by a omni-maximal entity
  3. That this entity didn't just create the universe and then decide to go and do other things, it actually stayed around interfering with what it had created
  4. That the entity was actually the deity of a particular iron age tribe that lived on a small section of a planet which rotates round one particular sun in 1011 suns in a particular galaxy in something like 150 billion others
  5. That the doings of this deity were documented in the holy book of that tribe some 2000 years ago and that the contents of that book are still valid
Once you have established all that then come back and we can discuss how your supernatural god interferes in the natural world without being detected, cures some people and not others, drowns 99.99999% of the earth's human population but is still omni-benevolent.

More Pages: Previous | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 | Next