201. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35678 by Fedler on April 28, 2007 at 8:35 am

Burly,

Different definitions of evil aside, I don't think it follows that one should follow from the other (god from evil, evil from god). To me, the question is similar to asking "if there is (no) sun, how do cars exist?"

202. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35483 by Fedler on April 27, 2007 at 10:08 am

I can't help but remember the following quotes:

"The mists of incomprehension and failure of communincation are not just annoying impediments to rigorous refutation; they are themselves design features of religions worth looking at closely on their own." Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel Dennett, page 217.

Coupled with this one:

"So we have the strange phenomenon...of a mind believing with all its strength in the real presence of a set of things of no one of which it can form any notion whatsoever." The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James.

I just found them complementary and relevant in this case.

203. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35436 by Fedler on April 27, 2007 at 6:35 am

- In a postmodern world you can make anything mean what you want it to mean. Religion is not popular – most people in Britain would not claim any kind of meaningful religion. However when they start to think about it they realise that their atheist presuppositions are in fact myths and that the evidence for God is far greater than they were told.

If you say so, David. Apparently you have your hand on the TRUE heartbeat of how people think. Please, tell me what I'm supposed to think, too! Oh, wait...that would be like a religion. Nevermind....

Konquerez was describing his upbringing – one which I would regard as deeply unchristian in many of its aspects.

Wow, you were able to discern his upbringing in one post, did you? Your powers of psychology through message boards is astounding. Let me guess, god gave you these powers, did he?

204. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35254 by Fedler on April 26, 2007 at 6:07 pm

By the way, who is the guy on this sight who has as his ID Pic the woman in a Burka with the quote saying "Thank You for Not Provoking My Uncontrollable Lust" I love that!!!!

I believe that would be our friend, Luthien.

205. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35164 by Fedler on April 26, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Thirdly, I'm afraid that if you are not a Christian now, you never were one in the past.

Whoa! Back up the judgment train. You know nothing of our various pasts and how we arrived at our current atheism, therefore you have no basis for making this statement. Many of us here were strong, devout believers at some point. Only after thinking about things rationally and cross-referencing our new knowledge over several disciplines (biology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, psychology, etc.) have we come to our current realizations.

This has become one of my major pet peaves about discussing religion with fundamentalists. They seem very quick to effectively rule out anything we have to say by saying "You weren't the RIGHT kind of Christian" or were not doing it PROPERLY, or you were not TRULY penitent, as if anyone who doesn't believe as they do aren't really human in some way. These are absolutely baseless statements, extremely condescending, and offer no room for open mindedness.

206. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35161 by Fedler on April 26, 2007 at 12:26 pm

dyingfaith,

I'm trying to find some sites I know were posted by another poster on another thread, but I can't find them right now. I did find a general law against blasphemy in Massachusetts:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/02/01/atheism-is-illegal-in-massachusetts/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mass.gov%2Flegis%2Flaws%2Fmgl%2F272-36.htm&frame=true

I know it's not the same thing, but you can refer to comment #14 about the 'laws' that may be on the books, but not enforced.

I'm still looking....

207. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35118 by Fedler on April 26, 2007 at 9:04 am

You see most people in our society are lazy and dumbed down. When Dawkins comes along and starts them thinking often they do not like the atheist answers and that leaves the door wide open for the real truth to get in.

Anyone else take this as "People don't like to think, which is why religion is popular."? What a ringing endorsement!

Yes – there is no doubt that you were a fundamentalist religious person – but what you have said above is not the testimony of a Christian – but rather someone who was brought up in a closed religious environment.

Oh, again. WE are the ones you are wrong because we just haven't been TRUE Christians yet. David does has an enormous capacity to totally disregard other people's perspective, doesn't he? Gee, what a nice guy! Konquererz, I'm sorry he's alienating you, too.

208. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34841 by Fedler on April 25, 2007 at 12:31 pm

There I was, labouring under the impression that you were some of the most free-thinking, open-minded intellectuals in the world, but it seems I was wrong. I presume from this that any opinions which challenge your assumptions are viewed as unwelcome intrusions.

1. Don't flatter yourself in thinking you could communicate with "the most free-thinking, open-minded intellectuals in the world", and

2. You have challenged nothing, only spouted dogma from the Bible. It's hard to have meaningful discussions with figments of your imagination.

I, for one, won't waste any more time with it.

209. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34831 by Fedler on April 25, 2007 at 11:45 am

Very well said, konquererz.

210. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34804 by Fedler on April 25, 2007 at 9:42 am

Weefree,

Please leave. You mention how atheists always mention the same old arguments, but here you again spouting 'Hitler', 'militant atheism', 'this site is not a free-thinking oasis', blah, blah, blah (It's free-thinking for those of us willing to be free).

Jesus, spare me!

You obviously have no intention of entering into a meaningful discussion. You know your comments on this thread and other threads will be met with resistance again and again, which, in your opinion will give you more fodder to whine and shout to the heavens "See, you atheists are not open-minded!" I have not seen one ounce of humility from you in regards to whether or not you even MIGHT be mistaken in your beliefs. You have turned this site, and Dawkins personally, as your version of hell on earth and recently you appear to have made it your personal goal to fling as much anger as you can toward atheists, this site, Dawkins, and anyone who hasn't 'seen the light' with regard to faith.

I won't mark you as a troll as some people here have not heard your tired arguments ad nauseum and they may wish to 'discuss' with you.

211. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34577 by Fedler on April 24, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Speaking of staying on subject....

Burl, I'm still anticipating an answer to my question in #227. You responded with another question in #239, but I'm still curious in your take on the morality issue.

212. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34506 by Fedler on April 24, 2007 at 9:20 am

Thank you, epeeist. I don't have a very good working knowledge of logic (wow, that's a bit of a paradoxical statement) :).

213. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34500 by Fedler on April 24, 2007 at 8:59 am

Fedler,

Can you kindly provide historical examples of our laws of logic changing due to newfound "evidence"?

I didn't say "laws of logic". There are no hard and fast 'laws' that I'm aware of.

But our reasoning is always updated by new models of the world as we become aware of the facts surrounding them. Just about any discovery in any science-related field would qualify as an example of updating our reasoning or logic, specifically, I would think, in the behavioral and/or social sciences (i.e. why we do the things we do).

214. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34467 by Fedler on April 24, 2007 at 6:47 am

And if morality is just made up as we go along, two questions. What is to prevent us from regressing or veering off into anything we please, just so long as we please to? And, further, why are you not willing to say that we make up standards of objective reason, logic, and validity as we go along also?

I'm always amazed at the apparent lack of trust that believers seem to show for humans. Saying our morality can only come a god-based belief system is insulting to humans. Why is it so hard to accept that we, and we alone, are responsible for our own actions?

Our standards of objective reason, logic, and validity do change as new objective, proven evidence presents itself. (We once thought the world was flat, but now know better) I'm really struggling to see why this is this so hard to comprehend for some people?

215. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34213 by Fedler on April 23, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Rob,

For every god-loving bible verse you cherry-pick there are several others that contradict it, so it's best not to get into that discussion.

Burly Gates, please excuse me popping in here, but what is your explanation for morality? I see you asking a lot of questions and shooting down the answers because you don't like them or don't think they're sound. So, what's your explanation for morality? I too could sit here and say "according to what standard?" until I'm out of breath, but that's not an answer either. You seem to have it all figured out, but just aren't telling us. Perhaps I'm getting the wrong impression.

216. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33627 by Fedler on April 20, 2007 at 7:09 pm

krogercomplete,

Please, keep us infomred of Marc Hauser's book. My horribly inadequate library in town does not have much for science books (very odd, I think) and I haven't been able to get to the neighboring larger city to look it up. I hope to get it soon, but please do let us know what you think (at least until I can get my own copy).

217. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33518 by Fedler on April 20, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Sorry, just breezing through….

Sinister Minister,

[Sinister Minister] Is the life of a human being worth no more or less than the life of a mosquito? To whom? Why? What difference does it make?

A. To humans, the life of a human being is worth more than the life of a mosquito.
B. Why? Because we're the humans and we like to see our species survive.
C. It makes a big difference if you're human (or a mosquito for that matter) for reasons I would think would be fairly obvious (reproduction of your own species, etc.)

Regarding your communications with Dr. Provine, I can't say any more. I have no knowledge about his intentions.

[Fedler] Significance is different from worth. I think significance is felt intrinsically while worth is something attributed from the outside.

[Sinister Minister] You'll have to expand on that. I'm not sure what difference it would make in my question to Dr. Provine to speak of worth instead of significance. I believe human beings have both. Are you saying you think he might say human beings have one but not the other? If so, please elaborate.

Again, I can't say what Dr. Provine's intentions were. I, too, believe human beings have both worth and significance, but it's relative to the perspective. The worth or significance we give ourselves may not be the same worth or significance someone else give us. For instance, I think I have a lot of worth (because it's my life). Someone in another country who doesn't know me from a hole in the ground probably won't even be able to force a tear if I should happen to fall dead in the shower tomorrow (if they even know about it).

Beyond that, no one knows and I can only speculate.

218. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33492 by Fedler on April 20, 2007 at 11:45 am

SRWB,

I very much agree. To the whole of the cosmos, we don't matter. To a large number of humans, we matter a lot. Perspective accounts for a great deal. All the more reason to live more fully and responsibly (and beautifully) in the one chance that we do have.

219. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33486 by Fedler on April 20, 2007 at 10:42 am

@Sinister Minister

Very good questions, and well worth considering further. I'm on my lunch break at work right now so I must be brief.

I think it's a question of significance vs. worth. I believe Darwinists do generally feel that no one life is MORE significant than another. ALL life is significant because it is here. All life has evolved to its unique place in its development. In terms of which life is MORE significant (human vs. mosquito), that is a subjective question with no right or wrong answer. Certainly to the mosquito its life is very significant, as is our life to us.

I can only speculate, but perhaps Dr. Provine was upset with your follow-up question because he may have interpreted it as accusing him of saying six million lives don't matter. Of course that's not true. To humans, losing six million lives is significant, but mosquitoes may not care. To mosquitoes, losing six million fellow mosquitoes is a horrible tragedy but we humans don't notice.

Significance is different from worth. I think significance is felt intrinsically while worth is something attributed from the outside.

220. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33263 by Fedler on April 19, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Mr. Wilson,

I sincerely hope your rhetorical question in #149 is not seriously your viewpoint. According to www.dictionary.com, injurious is described as:

1. harmful, hurtful, or detrimental, as in effect: injurious eating habits.
2. doing or involving injury or wrong, as to another: injurious behavior.
3. insulting; abusive; defamatory; offensive: an injurious statement.

Of course this is bad. But I'll take the bait on behalf of other posters. Where are you going with this? I'm intrigued, but you must know that heading into a discussion about standards of morality is always a quagmire, no matter what your personal belief system, atheists or believers alike. I assume this is where you're heading, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

221. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33149 by Fedler on April 19, 2007 at 1:44 pm

WilliamP-

I totally agree. Here is David's first posting, which kicked off the initial contact:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson

Again, you may have to wade through some of the more negative comments but, this is a wealth of responses from him. It may save him some repetition. Also, his Free Church website (www.freechurch.org) under the "Today's Issues" section is where I believe he pulled most of the content for his book.

Fishpeddler, I love the analogy of Jesus playing volleyball with the atheists. JC must be one hell of a spiker!

222. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33142 by Fedler on April 19, 2007 at 1:14 pm

krogercomplete,

David Robertson is a minister for the Free Church of Scotland (www.freechurch.org).

223. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33141 by Fedler on April 19, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Gabe and WilliamP-

As Kingsaurus states many of us on this site have engaged theists in discussion, especially David Robertson. What you're witnessing is simply frustration. David is well-known on this site for giving unsatisfactory answers (in our view), and then blaming us for being incapable of understanding. In turn, he doesn't like what we have to say and repeatedly claims we're not freethinkers. There's definite intellectual dissonance and different points of view, but there has been pages and pages of discussion. The discussion even migrated to David's website after someone flagged him as a troll here but his website's message board was shut down (for reasons separate from the discussions).

224. The Age of Darwin

Comment #32269 by Fedler on April 16, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Oh, and we need to invent two separate words for authentic Mexican food and crappy chain-restaurant Mexican food.

Maybe 'Mexithentic' and 'Mexicrappy' would work. Hmmmm. I'd better work on it some more.

Fishpeddler, you really have too much time on your hands in the Twin Cities, don't you? But, your comments are always enjoyable.

I shouldn't say too much, though. I'm in Iowa.

225. For God's Sake

Comment #31622 by Fedler on April 13, 2007 at 2:09 pm

@Spaghett Monster

I didn't mean any disrespect, I may have just been careless with my words. Our individual searches have just led us down different paths, that's all.

I used 'unthinkable' as a way to say inconceivable, since religious belief was just a 'given', something that wasn't questioned. It's definitely thinkable, just not always comprehensible.

226. For God's Sake

Comment #31613 by Fedler on April 13, 2007 at 1:48 pm

I wouldn't say I've ever seen a lack of reason on this site, rather just different perspectives. From the atheist perspective, belief in a god is 'delusional' to an extent. Before I began to think about it seriously, the lack of belief seemed unthinkable to me, too.

227. For God's Sake

Comment #31607 by Fedler on April 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm

"But I do wonder…… if I live to see the day when religion and 'God' go the way of (for the vast majority) Santa and the tooth fairy……who or what will replace 'God' as justification for murder and war……? I just have this strange feeling that global acts of violence and war aren't going to disappear / or even dissipate with the absence of 'God'."

Agreed. Just as I don't feel global acts of violence will decrease if we all drop to our knees, bow and claim allegiance to a god. I, for one, would at be willing to try a different path for humanity, one without the litmus test of religious biases. It may fail miserably, but it's better than staying stagnant.

If the horse you're riding dies, get off.

228. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #30012 by Fedler on April 6, 2007 at 6:32 am

philos,

Thanks for your comments. I tend to cringe whenever someone starts talking about political propoganda, liberal left-wing blah, blah, blah, I admit I usually tune out and it makes me not want to participate in the discussion because, to me, there is an air of close-mindedness that usually accompanies. That's my own personal experience, at least (ironically, my own close-mindedness).

It will be interesting to view the final report.

Re: the professor. I'd have to agree with Veronique on this one. I'm sure he does have other interests other than atheism and biology, and these evolve along with him.

Brian, I love your comment about Hummers. They truly are the open wound of the auto industry, in my opinion.

229. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #29967 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 7:33 pm

@Veronique,

Frightening. Although I tend to be leary when statistics are given in an article (because any stats can be found to justify anything), this is still worthy of further attention. Destroying habitat for alternative fuels doesn't make sense, which is why ethanol, solar, wind or waste by-product power seems to be more feasible. For ethanol we're already growing the corn, anyway, for other purposes (at least here in Iowa) and putting up an ethanol factory in the middle of a corn field makes a negligible impact on an ecosystem. We're not destroying anything (generally speaking) by harnessing solar or wind power and we're recycling by using waste products.

But, alas, I may be becoming too optimistic....

230. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #29962 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 6:48 pm

@cassdenata and Veronique,

Thanks for your comments. It's too bad doing the 'right' thing gets so expensive.

@andyinsdca, Dreamer's Dilemma, and philos,

I'm not sure what sparked your comments, but this particular thread is about global warming and alternative fuel scenarios. I've never seen Al Gore's documentary. I'm not politically motivated, only interested in learning about the potential problem of global warming. I don't have clear definitions of what a 'liberal' is and I don't associate myself with one particular political party or another. I don't think anyone here claimed that Dawkins was an expert on global warming. In fact, I don't believe anyone even mentions Dawkins' name until philos mentions it in post #21.

In short, I'm not certain what you're trying to add to the discussion. You appear to be unhappy that we're not discussing atheism. If that's so, I'm sorry. I would then politely direct you to other threads on this website you can participate in. I'm not being arrogant, intolerant or condescending (as you clearly expect us to be), rather just wondering what you would like to add to the discussion.

231. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #29931 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 2:42 pm

@Jiten,

Very good point about developing countries, and well taken. Ethanol is a start, but I would agree it's still far from perfect.

@cassdenata,

Thanks for the info. One thing that did surprise me in the Wiki article I mentioned previously, and one of the main points you raised, is the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI). I didn't realize that. Sugar can and waste products do seem the more efficient way to go.

Whatever happened to the solar energy buzz? It seems to have disappeared from the public view in the last couple years.

Wind power has also started to grow a little bit here in Iowa, but so far the investment doesn't reap large benefits unless it's done on a large scale, which makes people nervous if they can't test the waters a little bit first before diving headlong into it. In addition, the local power companies own all the equipment needed to start a wind farm, and they charge highly for it.

232. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #29893 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 11:21 am

@Jiten,

I understand your point on ethanol, but I'm not sure I agree. I live in Iowa, USA, which is a HUGELY agricultural state (my friends used to joke that we have more cows than people, but then it turned out to be true). But I would be hard pressed to say that using some land to produce ethanol instead of crops will make a significant impact on the food supply, especially with the growing use/interest (at least in Iowa) in bioengineered crops which produce more food from less plants.

I'll have to do some searching to see how much space an ethanol plant (factory) takes up...at least some time when I'm not at work...

EDIT: Pros and cons of ethanol at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

233. U.N. Draft Cites Humans in Recent Climate Shifts

Comment #29890 by Fedler on April 5, 2007 at 11:09 am

While many have begun to realize the threat of climate change and unstable foreign oil supplies, they rush right to energy sources that could possibly cause greater environmental and social destruction than oil/gas (I'm thinking ethanol here). Cassdenata, I would be interested in learning the greater environmental and social destruction to be caused by the use of ethanol. Where I live they are pushing to build new ethanol plants (since our state grows a lot of corn, which is used to make ethanol) all the time because of its gentler effects on the environment. Just asking if you could share those with me, out of curiosity.

234. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29326 by Fedler on April 2, 2007 at 2:59 pm

What a worthless article. Basically saying Dawkins makes good points in his book, but is too sarcastic. ..and the author fell into her pool. That's it. End of article. Perhaps Ms. Rife was just looking to kill 10 minutes of her time before deadline.

235. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28685 by Fedler on March 30, 2007 at 11:50 am

Professor Dawkins,

Thanks for clarifying. I admit when I read through the text I didn't see where Hawking said that either, but I figured I had missed it in some of the technical jargon and analogies and didn't give it a second thought. I need to trust my own instincts better :).

236. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28501 by Fedler on March 29, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Many congratulations, Professor Dawkins!!

Your dear friend (and one of my favorite authors), Douglas Adams, would be extremely proud.

237. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28499 by Fedler on March 29, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Re: Comment #28319 by ao9news

I, too, liked Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos. The references to The Simpsons were highly entertaining, especially regarding Bart and Lisa running to the Kwik-E Mart via time travel.

Plus, I e-mailed Prof. Greene at Columbia University to thank him for his book, and he actually replied to me. That floated my boat.

238. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28229 by Fedler on March 28, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Graham,

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall next to Hawking's table!

239. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28228 by Fedler on March 28, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Yorker and Spinoza, truce already!

Actually the onus of this thread was how Hawking appears to have said the universe started from nothing (which, from the first initial posts, appears to be no new speculation), and I believe Hawking did say more was needed to prove this. So, at this point, this thought appears to be nothing but a very rough, yet very pink, unicorn.

Besides, I'm now more interested in how Fishpeddler's corn turned out.

240. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #28003 by Fedler on March 27, 2007 at 2:55 pm

I couldn't resist the irony when this issue of Time magazine arrived at my house. On exactly this same day, I received a notice from my local diocese saying it was filing for bankruptcy due to the child abuse cases against clergy draining the diocese's funds.

The two are unrelated, but I just couldn't help but notice the irony.

241. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #27999 by Fedler on March 27, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Shuggy,

Thanks for the clarity on the rank system re: Pope vs. Cardinal vs. Bishop. I knew there were subdivisions within each rank, but the cobwebs in my memory were making it hard to remember. As you indicated, it all gets rather convoluted at times.

Rick Stromoski, good one!

242. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #27983 by Fedler on March 27, 2007 at 1:39 pm

GBile,

What is a 'Pope' ??

The Pope, based in the Vatican in Rome, is the figure head for Christianity throughout the world. Similar in role to that of a President.

What is a 'Bishop' ??

A Bishop in Christianity is the leader of a particular region or territory, roughly about 3-4 per state here in the U.S. The Bishop of a territory reports to a corresponding Cardinal, who covers an even larger area.

What is a 'Cardinal' ??

A Cardinal is higher than a bishop, but just below the Pope in terms of 'rank' (if clergy can be said to have a rank system). I think there are 6 Cardinals representing the United States.

I apologize for my North American chauvinism, but that's how the church hierarchy is roughly defined in the United States. I imagine it's at least somewhat similar in other countries. In a very generalized way, the progression from highest to lowest would be "Pope – Cardinal – Bishop". Beneath the Bishops are your local parish priests.

243. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27789 by Fedler on March 26, 2007 at 5:59 pm

This truly took me back when I first read it. The Bible as a secular document? Can't be….

But there is potential. The Bible has had tremendous influence, both good and bad, which shouldn't go unrecognized. Should there be a warning sticker as mentioned by TedGrant (#11)? You bet. Could this really open it up to critical analysis. Surely. But, it's a fine line, also. Given the nature of religion in the United States, I believe this class is more of an anomaly and I can easily see more classes deteriorate into religious belief classes rather than critical bible study classes. As phil rimmer states (#13) "Learning about religions is great. Learning from a religion is terrible." Perhaps I'm being pessimistic, but I would be surprised if classes such as this became mainstream. It's a good idea, but likely to be tainted with theist propaganda.

But , I have noticed that a great deal of the posts from atheists on all the sites seem to do alot of bible quoting. Since I come from a secular jewish family the bible wasn't a big thing growing up. Does anyone else see this or am I delusional.

Jayalenik, I see this, too. I admit I'm a Roman Catholic and I haven't read the Bible, either. I've read parts, but not the whole thing at once. Many atheists have quoted the Bible because I believe more atheists have read it more than most theists. And because of that reading, they are now an atheist, which is why a Bible study class, absent of the religious belief preaching, could be a good thing. There is nothing like reading a presumed authoritative text from 2000 years ago to make you wonder why it's still relevant today, especially considering how much our knowledge has grown since then.

244. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26557 by Fedler on March 20, 2007 at 11:56 am

Ewan D,

According to David's last post (#191), his silence appears to be self-imposed this time.

245. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26072 by Fedler on March 16, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Very good points, Phaeonix. Absolutes do not appear to address the variety of experiences and, in some cases, appear to go against our innate tendencies.

I find premise that some people who are experts in one certain field feel that they can undo the consensus and basic principles of an entire elite corps of specialists in a different unrelated field. When Dr. Plantinga expands on his version of the defeat of naturalism, and I mean no disrespect, he is but a fruit fly buzzing around a steel statue of a banana.

Playing devil's advocate again, the same could be said for RD talking about religion.

But your point on Plantinga is accurate. Whether it be laws of nature or human nature, the simplest concepts tend to be the most relevant or accurate. Details can be twisted and redefined to the point of not making sense, but that means precious little if the broad concept they are meant to support is allegedly flawed to begin with. Theists will disagree, but God is a very complex explanation for things.

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

Comment #26040 by Fedler on March 16, 2007 at 7:48 am

I have a PDF of the original journal article of this ASU study if anyone is interested.

E-mail: ssfedler613@hotmail.com

247. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #26026 by Fedler on March 16, 2007 at 6:58 am

Further to Fedler's points on the evangelical obsession with the virtue of humility (and vice of pride) I wonder if it perhaps constitutes a meme which helps the carrier misallocate spiritual experience to an external source? 'Nothing that grand could come from within a humble wretch like me.' Belief in the transcendent requires an underestimation of that which it supposedly transcends.

Ewan, that certainly seems a fair assumption. With dueling concepts like 'bad person vs. divine being' it is very feasible that humans could be conditioned to believe nothing good could come from within themselves. And that which is good could have only come from God. Underestimating, or actively belittling one's personhood, seems to beg for an external savior of some sort. To be fair, I certainly don't think this alone explains the whole of religious experiences, but it seems a reasonable possibility at some level.

Playing devil's advocate, as Ewan states there could be just as easily a secular counterpart. With the profound successes of the explanatory power of evolution, advances in physics, chemistry, etc., secularists have perhaps stepped out and overestimated what these disciplines can reasonably explain.

(Even without overstepping I think those disciplines have still refuted religious claims to miracles or anything else that defies the laws of nature, keeping religion and religious belief a strictly human enterprise).

248. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25880 by Fedler on March 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Can someone, now, please explain to me why Christians think they are generally morally superior to atheists? Here we have a guy who thinks that eternal torture is an appropriate fate for non-Christians. I, the horrid, evil atheist, won't even smack a dog. This is very interesting.

And, now while I am not perfect, I've never assaulted, killed, or raped anybody. I'm not seeing why you think eternal torture is necessary for most people.

I don't think Hell is so much a necessity for non-believers, but appears just to be a consequence of making an alleged poor choice, according to Christian dogma. As a parent, this is certainly not something I would condemn my own child to.

Re: the alleged moral superiority of Christians: I admit confusion to this, also. I'm beginning to learn about our innate sense of right and wrong that I believe we all have. Others, like David, will say the innate sense came from God himself. However, this still doesn't explain the feeling of superiority.

I'm no psychologist, but my immediate hunch is to think the constant references to being 'the chosen people', or being 'in favor with God', etc. that are peppered throughout the Bible and preached in Sunday worship services all over the world the last 2000 years help manifest a sense of indestructibility or inflated purpose to Christian belief. Naturally, from that would flow the feeling of being superior in general. Many Christians, of course, will deny this, which is likely why humility is also taught as a virtue – as a sort of counterbalance. But again, I'm no psychologist, just speaking from personal experience.

It's amazing to me that religious belief can build up a person to allegedly feel superior, while at the same time make you so afraid of it with threats of eternal hellfire, damnation, etc. The psychology of religious belief is indeed an interesting thing.

Re: the three books which started this thread. I can't imagine money being a primary reason for responding to TGD. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on that. Even RD states he wrote TGD because these are things he's thought for sometime and wanted to give an outlet for them, mainly to honor his friend, Douglas Adams, to whom he dedicated the book. But I can only hope that other people who choose to read these three response books think about what's written critically and objectively and open their minds to the possibility that maybe they haven't really thought about their own belief before. I believe anyone who does, surely cannot look at their belief the same again.

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

Comment #25878 by Fedler on March 15, 2007 at 2:14 pm

From the 'Conclusions' section of this study:

"Practitioners who adhere to Division 12 criteria have little basis for using intercessory prayer, in spite of a meta-analysis indicating small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer. Most practitioners, however, are likely to affirm the broader understanding of evidence-based practice articulated in the APA's [American Psychological Association] Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice (2006). Such practitioners may believe that the best available evidence currently supports the use of intercessory prayer as an intervention.

Thus, at this junction in time, the results might be considered inconclusive. Indeed, perhaps the most certain result stemming from this study is the following: The findings are unlikely to satisfy either proponents or opponents of intercessory prayer."

The study is 15 pages long (I work at a university and was able to get a PDF of the article), but the conclusion, which is all I've read so far, strikes me as vague. I also may be getting cynical, but how can results be both small and significant? Just a thought.

250. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25443 by Fedler on March 13, 2007 at 6:38 am

Hi, David.

You do not accept the fine tuning of the universe? That amazes me. Every cosmologist I have read states that it is. Do you not accept their scientific opinion?

I was referring to your implication that a god did the tuning. I know the universe has constants and I fully accept that scientific knowledge. Please don't try to put words into my mouth.