1. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93535 by Lauregon on December 3, 2007 at 12:19 pm

I'd think that I wouldn't trust a man who covered his eyes with his hat, and if it fell a bit lower it would maybe explain why the words seem to be coming from it. God knows what the little green men would think of that. - fides et ratio

I think a man who wears a towering crown, flowing gold robes, and lives in royal splendor, all in the name of an itinerant preacher who called for renunciation of worldly goods and preached a life of radical giving is a man in whom trust should not be freely placed.

2. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93307 by Lauregon on December 2, 2007 at 4:12 pm

I much-belatedly read somewhere that C.S. Lewis is supposed to be the originator of the street-corner trump-card that's so popular with evangelicals and fundamentalists that claims Jesus was either who he said he was, or he was a madman or a liar. In my opinion, that's a truly ridiculous idea, assuming as it does that the Bible can be believed as presenting factual history and accurate eye-witness reportage. Early on in my theist years I didn't find Lewis's theology to be convincing, and when when I finally read that he's the one who came up with that doofus either/or challenge, I dismissed him as being someone whose religious ideas should be taken seriously.

3. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93298 by Lauregon on December 2, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Fundamentalist secularism is every bit as aggressive as fundamentalist religion ever was. Is it not an imposition to require Christians to shut up about their faith outside the confines of their own home. The moment they enter the public square in whatever capacity of public life they are (increasingly) required to refrain from proclaiming or even confessing their faith as being of relevance to their public role. Is that not an imposition?

Where is this supposed to be happening?

4. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93293 by Lauregon on December 2, 2007 at 3:39 pm

What I mean is a human being, an object of God's love, a unique individual. - ADH

"God's love" doesn't really do a lot for all the babies born into the world without food, shelter,
safety, or prospects for a decent healthy future. I think of my grandmother and the nine children she was impregnated with and brought into a world of grinding poverty and the endless drudgery that constituted her life until she was able to retire (into continuing poverty) on a social security pension at age 65. I tend to think of such a "God" as being not all that different from squirt-and-run men who drop in long enough to impregnate their current woman then move on to greener pastures. As I see it, such a "God" is essentially little different than a deadbeat dad.

5. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92804 by Lauregon on December 1, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Dennett thanks goodness that he is alive. Some people thank God they are alive. Couldn't you see this as exactly the same thing? I asked him this very question (after the video cut off) and he responded with "yes, in fact you can see god = goodness")

In which case, goodness exists is to say god exists, which is to say that God isn't manmade. - yoyoman812

It's quite reasonable to say that man created both "God" and goodness which is how it could be said that one equals the other.

6. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #92029 by Lauregon on November 29, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Is it really reasonable to refer to these people as 'fleas'?

Professor Dawkins has captured the public imagination with his books, so it seems perfectly reasonable for people to write books disagreeing with what he has said in his books.
-robhu

It seems perfectly reasonable for Professor Richard Dawkins to write books disagreeing with the books, teachings, and theology of theists who, as a general rule in accordance with their theological assumptions and articles of faith, consider non-believers to be utterly incapable of morality and followers of "Satan." By comparison, "fleas" seems rather mild.

7. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91896 by Lauregon on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Some of these fleas concede that there are areas of religious belief in which the criticism of atheists is warranted. I wonder how many of them have taken the time before now to write their own books criticizing those beliefs.

8. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89409 by Lauregon on November 20, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Imagine the plight of Dianelo's poor daughter whose father imagines he shares the very mind of "God."

(I wonder if Dianelos, perchance, is a disciple of James Dobson).

9. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89366 by Lauregon on November 20, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Actually, experiencing being a parent helps one understand God's mind. - Dianelos

I've raised four children, all middle-aged adults now, and not once did I ever entertain such a preposterous conceit. You, Dianelos, like all theists, created a "God" in your own image and now struggle mightily to convince yourself---and us--- that the "God" you made in your image, made you in its image. Bleah. As if we hadn't heard all this theist delusion a quadrillion times before. Pfth.

10. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89340 by Lauregon on November 20, 2007 at 10:41 am

But the same physical phenomena represent only a part of the whole of a human being's experience of life. We have many more data to our disposal, indeed subjective data: how it is to love somebody, how it is to perceive beauty, how it is to understand or to realize the meaning of something, and, in general, how it is to be human. My thesis is that one cannot understand reality if one disregards this wealth of data, and it seems to me unwise to disregard them just in order to ape science which does not require that data in the first place. - Dianelos

You keep forgetting that many of us, if not all of us, once were theists.

11. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89319 by Lauregon on November 20, 2007 at 9:39 am

"But," says Suzi, "Barbie is the best toy ever. Introspection, which is just as good as science, proves me right about this." Dr Benway

"Honey, if I could give you only one gift, it would be this: to know what genuine love is like. One day you'll find it. And when that happens, you'll see that you don't need to make excuses all the time, as you do for God -- er, I mean X." - Dr Benway

*Hits the nails smack on their flat little heads!*

12. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89010 by Lauregon on November 19, 2007 at 1:23 pm

You are writing as one who appears to imagine he knows the mind of "God," - Lauregon

If my worldview is right then you can know the mind of God too. Just study how you yourself deep inside are. - Dianelos

Nothing you've written leads me to believe you know the mind of "God," but it's worth mentioning that George W Bush also believes he knows the mind of "God." Nor do I believe him.

13. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89007 by Lauregon on November 19, 2007 at 1:18 pm

If life ends at death as atheists believe then people can get away with doing bad things. That many atheists nevertheless care about others is fine of good, but does not affect the truth of my claim in any way whatsoever. - Dianelos

You're apparently like the young evangelical who came to my door trying to convert me who would've been profoundly disappointed to find a "God" who was as forgiving of murder as "he" was of greed.
You appear to really yearn for retribution.

14. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89004 by Lauregon on November 19, 2007 at 1:09 pm

#448

Such a rosy perspective doesn't sound at all like that of someone who has actual empathy for or understanding of the suffering of others. - Lauregon

On the contrary, to affirm the existence of ultimate justice gives comfort to those who are unfortunate. Atheism just tells them: You know, hard luck, but that's reality. - Dianelos

#1. I was speaking directly of your rosy attitude, and the fact that you don't appear to be in a position to know what real suffering is like. Your attitude clearly appears to be that suffering is tough luck for those who suffer, but, oh well, in the end they'll have pie in the sky, halleluia.

#2. Claims of pie in the sky can justify and have justified all manner of temporal cruelties inflicted upon the poor and suffering. Further, beliefs that the unfortunate are being punished or chastised by "God" and thereby deserve their misfortune are rampant---as is the idea that well-being and fortune is a sign of "God's" favor. There are no guarantees concerning what various theists believe about care of the unfortunate.

And theism gives theists one more reason to help those who are unfortunate beyond one's own benefit. - Dianelos

A barter arrangement with "God."

Atheism's logic would be: Why should I care for the unfortunate, we shall all be dust one day. Let the bleeding heart theistic morons help these people, or at least keep them off my back. And if the downtrodden represent any danger for my way of life, why, they are my enemies and the reasonable thing is to destroy them.- Dianelos

You're projecting your own thoughts onto atheists. You've already said that without belief in "God" you'd be a greedier, less moral person than you currently are. That's your problem, but not necessarily a problem shared by atheists as a whole.

(To avoid misunderstanding: I am discussing the atheistic logic not the atheist practice which more often than not follows the image of God within. But if you think I am misrepresenting atheistic logic then please suggest how atheistic logic would motivate an atheist to help others beyond what personally benefits the atheist.) - Dianelos

You wrongly assume that atheists as a whole lack compassion and empathy which is a dehumanizing and pernicious theist belief. Theist beliefs about rewards in the hereafter making up for suffering on earth are and have been a doorway to injustices and lack of caring for human suffering. Your ideas in this matter are hateful, and I find them reprehensible. I also sense that you often try to mask your true beliefs with a genial, academic facade, but in this discussion (as in some others) you've allowed the facade to fall away.

15. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88728 by Lauregon on November 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm

#366

And his science talk has been shown to be exactly that, the old military term BBB (bullshit baffles brains). As can be seen by the last series of posts DG doesn't really understand mathematics and logic, so like his words on science and naturalism, he just makes stuff up. - epeeist

As long as DG can keep the discussion on a science track, he can go on forbullshittingever, posing as the only person here who correctly understands the science at issue. He falters badly however, and frequently abandons the discussion when it deals with theism as it's practiced and has been formed. On that territory, he flails like a fish on sand, able merely to insist lamely that his idea of "God" is some-unnamed-how different and superior to others. Bah. No different than any other street-corner fundie with an ego-phone.



P.S. Your Chicken Little adaptation is charming.

16. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88676 by Lauregon on November 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm

We all agree there is an objective reality out there, in which we all exist, each one of us forming a tiny part. Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty. - Dianelos

There's nothing whatsoever out there that suggests any such thing to me. Hideous things abound in this world, and a "God" who for whatever reason is unable or unwilling to prevent them is either inept or perverse; in either case, not a "very very good person who...loves." A "God" person is a theological construct, necessitated by previous theological constructs before it, one that suits the purposes of authoritarians who firmly believe that humans can only be constrained from evil doings by a Big Cop In The Sky.

Unless and until you can prove otherwise, your efforts here are utterly pointless. As for your claim that you're here simply to understand how atheists think and to hone your arguments, you're not convincing us of that either. You appear to be merely a fast-talking saleman who lacks both interested market and demonstrable product.

17. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88530 by Lauregon on November 17, 2007 at 12:12 pm

It is just one small step from pantheism to atheism. All you need to do is ditch the divine language and stop mystifying everything. Once you have stopped mystifying everything, your talk of "an objective reality out there" might be a little more acceptable to somebody like me. - smithyboy

Dianelos is firmly committed to the idea of a God person out there running the whole show. Pantheism doesn't suit him even though it appears to be what he's actually promoting with his "all-of-reality" segment, because his primary concern is the maintenance of social order by means of religious belief in life after death and the guarantee of punishment for sinners in the hereafter. All the science talk he tosses around is merely a baffle-'em-with-bullshittery means to the end of keeping the world's rabble obedient to law and order which he thinks is impossible without the Big Sheriff In The Sky.

18. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88529 by Lauregon on November 17, 2007 at 11:59 am

Unfortunately ethics is not as simple as writing down a guide. What theism offers is a conceptual ground for discovering how we should live, which is a necessary requisite for reasoning about ethics. And beyond the theoretical advantages, theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism. - Dianelos

The sentiment, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out later" comes immediately to mind. I saw this sentiment prominently printed on t-shirts worn by groups of proud, aggressive, hate-spewing church members at several anti-anti-Iraq war demonstrations in 2003.

19. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88528 by Lauregon on November 17, 2007 at 11:53 am

But those whose worldview does entail that all people are built in God's image will be more likely to search for it both in private and in communion with other people, and will be less likely to stoop as low as to demonize or dehumanize their fellow human beings. - Dianelos

Faulty conclusion. Both history and a clear view of the present show that it's not at all unusual for theists to accept that all people are made in the image of "God" and yet at the same time prove themselves quite willing to demonize and dehumanize other people for not believing in "God" as they themselves do. Such theists are easily convinced by their leaders or even by their own reading of the Bible, or even by their own private contemplation to conclude that those who don't believe as they do, have done so by means of aligning themselves with "Satan," so that, even made in the image of "God," wrong-believers (and non-believers) have willfully chosen to part company with true believers and the one true "God" which legitimates true believers to persecute wrong and non-believers "in all Christian love."

(As it happens, this morning I heard several taped voice-recordings of true believers who called in to a free-thinkers radio program off-air to leave hate messages for the show's hosts, each message as hate-filled as those before and after it, all one way or another at least alluding to punishment to come for those awful free-thinking hosts who don't believe in "God").

20. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88439 by Lauregon on November 16, 2007 at 4:20 pm

No, no, nothing like that. Rather it goes like this: In order to understand the actions of any person one must know their prime motivation, what it is they want before all else. What God wants is for us to grow in virtue (i.e. increase personal goodness), and hence has created for us an experiential environment optimized for that goal. Why doesn't God directly give us all that virtue, instead of having us go through all the trouble and suffering and so on we are exposed here? Because either virtue is personally earned, or else is not virtue: personal goodness is either earned or is not personal. A related issue is why life's troubles are distributed so unjustly. The answer I think is that they are not distributed unjustly, for life continues far beyond death, and we shall all continue to experience both joy and pain and agonize over ethical decisions for a long time to come – and on average all people will get about the same deal. Moreover I think the distinction between individual persons is in a sense illusory: we are all in this together and in some fundamental sense the other person's suffering is my suffering also, and the other person's joy is my joy too. - Dianelos

Such a rosy perspective doesn't sound at all like that of someone who has actual empathy for or understanding of the suffering of others. Maybe if you had, for example, been born with cerebral palsy, or muscular dystrophy, or spina bifida, or maybe as a head-conjoined twin, or as a beseiged refugee in Darfur, or maybe even merely as a female factory slave/worker in China instead of as someone with myriad hours to spend posting on this forum and numerous others, writing as one who appears to imagine he knows the mind of "God," you might have a seriously different perspective. For that matter, a creator "God" whose perspective resembles your cheerful, "it all evens out in the end" view, would be a "God" whose ethics and morals fall far short of the best human examples.

21. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88378 by Lauregon on November 16, 2007 at 10:06 am

When I say I believe in some proposition because it strikes me as completely obvious, he insists that in order to convince him I must present *evidence*. - Dianelos

A perfectly reasonable position.

But the belief that something objectively exists does not imply that we can easily find out about it. - Dianelos

An illusory world in which there are absolute laws imposed by a "God" person is a deck god-stacked against the people who must live in it. Such a "God" person would be diabolic and somewhat akin to a person who owns a casino.

22. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88346 by Lauregon on November 16, 2007 at 5:38 am

One word does not make an argument no matter how loud it's shouted. You like being cryptic and dropping hints instead of presenting a case – but hey, suit yourself. - Dianelos

What's that you say, Mr Potts?

It seems a common tactic of the atheistic mindset is to try not to expose itself (e.g. atheism is only a lack of belief, atheism is not a belief system, lack of beliefs cannot motivate people to act badly, atheism being a negative proposition does not have the burden of proof, I "don't know" how objective reality is so I don't have to divulge my thoughts about it, etc).

Well, maybe that's a smart tactic; maybe atheists deep down do realize that atheism is rather problematic so it's better to avoid making explicit how they think. I must say though that to their merit many atheists here, including Steve99 and Dr Benway, did not follow that tactic. And to their merit New Atheism authors have gone out and debated theists. It will be interesting to observe if they will continue doing such debates in the future, for at the very least one thing that these debates have clearly evidenced is that theism is not as moronic as they have been insisting in their books. Finally I would like to warmly commend this very website of Dawkins: it's very instructive and open; probably the best place to find out what's happening in this area as well as how atheists think. - Dianelos

No matter how well you think of yourself and your theist argumentation, Dianelos, it's a failure. You've converted no one here. You're a salesman lacking both market and demonstrable product. Without the political power to compel belief through coercion and force, theism is impotent in a non-theist realm. At its root, theism is utterly authoritarian. You seem to prefer ignoring that fact (at least for the present). There's a reason why for centuries theism was so often imposed by means of sword and stake.

23. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #86472 by Lauregon on November 9, 2007 at 11:02 am

And, arguably, nobody has written a more splendid moral code than Christian ethics as recorded in the Gospels two thousand years ago...- Dianelos

The "moral code of the gospels" route again, eh, Dianelos? The previously-discussed avaricious and murderous "Parable of the Talents" rushes to mind. We know from that earlier discussion on another thread that you invent your own gospel reality, ignoring what's actually written on the page in favor of the context-free banality you choose to see instead. More, you've proudly admitted to cherry-picking the Bible, selecting passages that suit you, and discarding others, but somehow, despite the utter subjectivity of your method, you insist this process leads you to knowledge of an objective morality? Totally bogus crapcakes, Dianelos. Fakersome bullshittery.

24. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85314 by Lauregon on November 5, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Good to see you back, Dr Benway! Wishing you some yummy cookies and fragrant tea. (Or a finger or two of some fine scotch).

25. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85305 by Lauregon on November 5, 2007 at 1:12 pm

And I'm afraid refusing to read any of our books suggests that that is exactly what you are doing. - Wee Flea

Most of us have already read more than enough theist books that we don't need to read any more, regardless of whatever burr has crept into theist britches lately. Theists are simply going to have to accept that their millennias of dominion over human minds is losing its potency and that non-belief has become highly visible and audible.

As for Dianelos, no point in further engaging his sciency argumentation. His true concern beneath all that muddle-befuddle (as is all creationist/ID argumentation) is what he sees as the social necessity of maintaining obedience to and worship of the Sky God. He likes to sound science-minded, but that's really just obfuscation for his true concern.

26. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84981 by Lauregon on November 4, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Female scholars of religion toting water for the male god are called "theologians." Feminist scholars of religion not toting water for the male god have referred to themselves as "thealogians." What a difference an "a" makes.

27. The truth in religion

Comment #84253 by Lauregon on November 1, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Faith is a commitment to a form of motivated belief, differing only from scientific reason in the nature of the subject of that belief and the kind of motivations appropriate to it.
- Polkinghorne

Motivated belief: I believe because I want to believe and choose to believe.

No progress will be made in the debate about religious belief unless participants are prepared to recognize that the issue of truth is as important to religion as it is to science. - Polkinghorne

If "truth" is allowed to inhabit the realm of "it's true because I choose and want to believe it," "truth" has a definition other than the one that is meant when one swears in a court of law to tell the truth.

28. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #84248 by Lauregon on November 1, 2007 at 2:20 pm

if you identify as a Christian/Jew/Muslim, you are not free to define your own God. Your God has already been defined by the Bible or Koran, and this is the God to which the atheist refers. If you insist on redefining God, then at least be intellectually honest enough to stop calling yourself a Christian/Jew/Muslim; stop attending church/synagogue/mosque; and admit that no scripture, and probably very few people, support your position. - Ericross

Excellent!

29. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #84196 by Lauregon on November 1, 2007 at 12:02 pm

But if one believes there is an afterlife such that it never pays to miss doing the right thing no matter how it may appear to us here, that by doing the right thing one creates "treasure that thieves cannot steal and moth cannot destroy", then one has a logical path towards ethical behavior, and at the very least one has one more reason for doing what's right. - Dianelos

IOW, theism is based on fear of consequences. The problem with your revised theology is that ultimately, just like orthodox faith, your neo-theism will have to construct some sort of framework of fear-based coercion in order to get the desired results, i.e., compliance with "God's will," not to mention that someone somewhere is going to have decide precisely what "God's will" is. No matter how you slice it, you're advocating religous belief for the sake of social control, which doesn't really require an actual "God." Belief alone will do, which is why all your (and all creationist) scientific argumentation for "God" is rendered utterly unbelievable: It's only a means to an end.

30. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #84176 by Lauregon on November 1, 2007 at 11:23 am

I would just like to remind everyone here that the fact that the writer of the article has a First Class Honours degree in theology does not automatically lend any greater credibility to his arguments than they would have otherwise. He may indeed know what he is talking about, but then so do all those others who have likewise obtained similarly impressive qualifications but who have not arrived at the same conclusions as he has. - ADH

As has already been mentioned, you seem to have missed the point of the article, which is a rebuttal of the claims of theists that atheists are and have been attacking strawmen rather than the beliefs of Christianity itself.

If you have a different view of Christianity's beliefs, please share them with us, and show us how and where you see Standing's summation as being erroneous.

31. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83938 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Of course, our friend Dianelos has recently seemed to find amusing my idea that what the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope says is necessarily theism.

But this is a real keeper article, and I'm jealous as hell that I didn't write it.

32. AAI 07

Comment #83933 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Has anyone considered the possibility that scooter and notsobad may actually be theist trolls on this site, planted so as to boost the stereotypical 'heartless immoral atheist' stereotype so necessary for theist arguments? - Steve99

The possibility did occur to me; Scooter seems fiercely faith-driven. Haven't paid that much attention to notsobad. Yet.

33. AAI 07

Comment #83932 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 5:14 pm

I agree, Diacanu. Your post # 395/#83891 was terrific.

34. AAI 07

Comment #83818 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 11:56 am

Lauregon,
smart-ass comments like that are rather pointless in a 'clear-thinking oasis'. - notsobad

Perhaps I should've turned the other cheek. ;)

35. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83812 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 11:18 am

These right-wing Christians who put BushInc in office believe that charity should be confined to voluntary contributions, and that government social benefits thwart "God's" will by allowing the undeserving poor a safety-net - Lauregon

This seems to me to be quite an extremist view. - Dianelos

Many people claim to know what "God's" will is.

I think that many people vote for the Republican party simply because of greed: they expect the Republican party to lower their taxes. But greed is not motivated by religion; quite the contrary in fact. If people took seriously any of the great religions they would be less greedy. - Dianelos

So many differing people feel so certain they know what "God's" will is.

36. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83810 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 11:08 am

No, that's not what I am claiming.
I am claiming that the best theistic worldviews are more reasonable than the best atheistic worldviews, because when compared one to one under the same criteria the former work better than the latter. Further I also claim that religious worldviews are more conducive to morality than non-religious worldviews. Finally I claim that to those for whom the world seems to be religiously ambiguous, and who therefore cannot decide on other grounds whether to adopt a religious worldview or not, the fact that a religious worldview offers various experiential benefits including ethical empowerment is sufficient reason to choose a religious worldview. - Dianelos

Which means that it doesn't matter whether or not "God" actually exists. What's important, you maintain, is that it's pragmatic to assume or pretend that "God" exists because of the benefits you believe accrue from the belief.

That said, living a "religious" life doesn't necessarily require a "God" person. Buddhists call living such a life "mindfulness." I have the idea that Sam Harris is following that path in some way---as is my best friend, a Hindu Vedantist.

If what you're advocating is simply a way of life, why all the zealous attempt to scientifically "prove" the existence of "God?" Why not become part of the New Age movement and campaign for a spiritual or mindful way of life? For that matter, why not align with Spong?

By the way, you are correct to write about my speaking of the "God person", but please note that it's also the "God reality". God is the whole of reality, and the whole of reality is a person. - Dianelos

So you claim. (BTW, Spong disagrees).

I claim that the proper accompaniment to peanut butter and bread is raspberry jam. I also claim that sandwiches made of ordinary bread should never be cut in rectangles but only in triangular halves . I claim that neapolitan ice cream is only for toddlers, and that eggplant is a dandy meat substitute. ;)

37. AAI 07

Comment #83806 by Lauregon on October 31, 2007 at 10:53 am

Scooter, sweetie, good luck with that precious little Master of the Universe fantasy of yours. And thanks for not disappointing with your responses to me. You met my every expectation. Jeers!

38. AAI 07

Comment #83687 by Lauregon on October 30, 2007 at 11:58 pm

ScooterNYC seems young, woefully limited in life experience, and besotted with Ayn Rand's philosophy. His version of atheism is an example of why atheists are loathed and despised.

My husband's heart surgery costs are nearing $80,000, but we have health insurance. Lucky us, born when we were, in the golden age of post-war US. Such costs are absolutely devastating for those without insurance.

One of my daughters is now a single mom with three girls, one of whom has cerebral palsy. My daughter works 3 and 4 jobs to keep her family together, and fortunately, she has health insurance; not very good insurance, but basic stuff. If she were to become seriously injured or ill, her family would be utterly destroyed.

A neighbor of ours had no health insurance and developed a breast cancer that finally erupted because the woman didn't seek the medical help she couldn't afford. The cancer has, of course, metastasized, and she will die soon.

This is the kind of reality the libertarian world-view glosses over with its ship-load of disdain and scorn for the unwell, the non-affluent, and the humanly imperfect. I think it was Steve99 who said something like he despaired for the world if such a world-view prevailed. So do I. What a hell-hole we're heading for if the libertarian let-'em-rot ethic becomes the last word in human development.

Bravo to Steve99, Bonzai, Epeeist, Veronique, djgw201, et al (there are others; I'm sorry for forgetting all your names) for your articulate counter-arguments to scooternyc's perspective.

It's reasonable to suppose my post will reap the same contemptuous scorn the aforementioned have received. Oh, well. I'm proud to place my posts in the company of theirs.

P.S. I'm adding windweaver and mejdrich to the bravo list.

39. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83616 by Lauregon on October 30, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Well, however Spong may be using the concepts of "religion" or of "theism" it's clear that Spong believes in God (as his statement you just quoted evidences) and hence is clearly a theist according to how all atheists and (for all practical purposes) all theists use this concept. - Dianelos

Not true. Spong says theism is dead. Spong does speak of "God," but as an experience. He says that the traditional God has been rendered unbelievable by the intellectual revolution of the past 500 years. Spong writes in his latest book that atheism is a rejection of the theist definition of God. He writes, "I am a God-intoxicated being, but I can no longer define my God experience inside the theistic definition of God...the theistic definition was never about God; it was always about human beings desperately in need of a coping system that would enable them to live with the anxieties of what it means to be human." [p 214]

And I suppose by "supernatural doctrines" he means the various miracle stories, which most liberal Christians do not believe either. - Dianelos

You don't seem to actually know much about Spong's views, but you've written that you think Spong has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Given that you appear to be attempting to align Spong's views with those of "most liberal Christians," and given that you claim he remains a theist, what was the 'baby' you think he threw out---and why do you suppose he's so controversial and so vilified by so many clergy and lay persons around the world?

40. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83572 by Lauregon on October 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/buddhistatheism.shtml>

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

Comment #83543 by Lauregon on October 30, 2007 at 11:27 am

I'm not sure of your point here. Of course an evangelical would have to do a mental dance to square his beliefs with evolution. But the point is moderates don't have to since they don't take the Bible literally. - Eric Blair

Moderates do, however, align with fundamentalists in rejecting atheism. In the US at the present day an avowed atheist wouldn't stand a chance of being elected to high office. There's a negative view of atheism even among moderates. While moderates and atheists may find common ground on certain or even many social issues, moderates and fundamentalist are aligned when it comes to rejecting atheism. The major difference between fundies and moderates is in biblical interpretation, but when it comes to negative views of atheism and the necessity of religious faith, they're in the same fold.

In the example I used earlier, I attempted to show the intellectual muddle that moderate/liberal Christianity is today, with believers rejecting some orthodox beliefs and embracing some secular views, but all the while holding fast to the certainty that without faith in "God" one is ultimately doomed. For that reason, I think it's accurate to say that moderate (and liberal) believers give shelter to fundamentalism.

42. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83530 by Lauregon on October 30, 2007 at 10:29 am

I think it may be more likely that there is a deep-seated fear of a world without certainties, especially moral ones. - Steve99

I think you're absofrigginlutely correct.

43. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83343 by Lauregon on October 29, 2007 at 6:20 pm

I feel hesistant trying to correct such a perceptive analysis, but I feel you are missing something. I think that Dianelos is not so much trying to convince others about the existence of objective moral truths; I think he is trying to convince himself. - Steve99

Could be; maybe that's part of the messianic process. ;)

44. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83238 by Lauregon on October 29, 2007 at 11:52 am

the whole issue of the efficiency of the health services in the US has next to nothing to do with religiosity. - Dianelos

There is a strong correlation between religious belief and the lack of universal health care programs in the US. There is and has been a deep current among right-wing Christians that social services are immoral, stealing from those who deserve to give to those who don't. This racist, right-wing sectarian faction has since the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and 70s burrowed purposely and deep into the political machinery of the US, and fought fiercely against welfare programs and anything that hints of "socialism"---such as universal health care. These right-wing Christians who put BushInc in office believe that charity should be confined to voluntary contributions, and that government social benefits thwart "God's" will by allowing the undeserving poor a safety-net, without which the poor would be left to destitution which "God" mercifully allows to happen to the wicked as a teaching. IOW, if you're poor, it's because you're out of favor with "God."

45. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83233 by Lauregon on October 29, 2007 at 11:27 am

Neo-theist Dianelos burrows ever deeper into the corner of no return, arguing for what Dennet calls "belief in belief."

46. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83050 by Lauregon on October 28, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Hi mates,

I might or might not disappear for a time - having a hysterectomy tomorrow morning.

Yes, some assumed I was male and I never bothered to straighten things out. A sin of omission I'm correcting now.

Cheers! - Dr Benway

May your hysterectomy be as wildly successful as my husband's valve job and multiple by-passes in August. Make friends with the frigging breathing tube if you're given one.

Very best wishes.

47. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83046 by Lauregon on October 28, 2007 at 5:34 pm

You see where I am pointing at? Ethics without some transcendental ground in a religious worldview is apt to go seriously wrong. - Dianelos

Yes, I see. What you're saying, Dianelos, is that, whether a "God" person actually exists or not, the "God" person must be made to appear to be a fact---and a scientific fact at that---which renders your entire argumentation utterly UNBELIEVABLE. Given your premise that belief in "God" must continue for the sake of social order, you will to argue ad nauseum, as you are doing and have been doing, using whatever dodgy tactics are useful in the moment, any tactic at all, anything to keep "God" belief alive. You've argued your way deep into into a corner here from which you can never extricate yourself. You can, of course, argue on and on and on, but you'll possess zero credibility. You aren't arguing for truth, or for "God." You're arguing for social control, plain and simple. What you're arguing for is neo-con bullshittery.

48. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83040 by Lauregon on October 28, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Well, yes, I know of that language, but it's quite misleading because Spong is not an atheist; in fact he believes in the existence and presence of God and calls himself a Christian. - Dianelos

I didn't say Spong was atheist, but he does refer to himself as non-theist, of theism as dying, and he does call for a new, non-theist understanding of both Jesus and Christianity; he completely rejects theism's supernatural doctrines. And, as I said earlier, people who come to reject those supernatural doctrines do find their way to Spong and his new vision of a "religionless Christianity." See his latest book for verification, "Jesus For the Non-Religious." In it he writes, "Theism isn't God; it is rather, a human coping mechanism."

I was not speaking about what the Pope or this or that archbishop believes or teaches, but only pointing out that a significant percentage of Christians are liberal (and hence openly non-dogmatic) and that in fact there are very few Christians who really believe that every word in the Bible is true. The contrary view is one sold by new atheists to shore up their Christian straw-bogeyman.- Dianelos

You're confusing fundamentalist biblical inerrancy with the doctrines and creeds of tradition and orthodoxy. They're not the same thing. You and other theists insist that non-theists are knocking down "strawmen" in their deconstructing and rejection of the tenets of orthodoxy, but as long as theists continue to recite orthodox creeds, retain belief in miracles and other biblical supernatural phenomena, and celebrate the resurrection from the dead of Jesus, what's being knocked down isn't strawmen.

If the creeds are wrong then indeed dogmatic Christian belief is frail. And I think it is. Obviously, Spong agrees, but in my view he goes way too far and throws away the baby with the bathwater. - Dianelos

It appears to me the reason you think he's gone way too far is that you fear that leaving behind the Cop In The Sky could lead to "unforeseen consequences." I see that as the monster-fly-in- the-ointment of your bland and so-far amorphous neo-theism. All your scienc-y argumentation doesn't conceal what's really eating you about non-theism: You're really worried about rampant immorality breaking out in the absence of a Supreme Law-Giver/Enforcer/Punisher.

:-) So you think that the truth of theism is contingent on what the Pope et al say? - Dianelos

Theist leaders do indeed define what theism involves and requires of its adherents. You spoke of "liberal" believers, listing orthodox beliefs you claim they no longer hold, to which I replied that such liberals end up aligning with Spong, who for his courageous efforts is subjected to angry sometimes virulent denunciations from traditional, orthodox believers---including so-called liberal ones---and even death threats. It's not at all clear exactly who or what it is you imagine yourself speaking for when you refer to "liberals" who reject the resurrection, the trinity, the incarnation, etc., if they are other than those who who end up embracing Spong's non-theism. (And, by the way, when it comes to someone having actual and wide knowledge of what believers believe or don't believe, I see no reason to accept your claims over Spong's).

Well, unfortunately we read the gospels very differently. For me the substance of John 13:34-35 is clearly and explicitly about how we should live our lives. - Dianelos

What's clear is that you read the gospels as cherry-picked proof-texts. The passage speaks of a command to Jesus' disciples to love one another as Jesus has loved them. The command is neither clear nor explicit, can be and is interpreted in myriad and often contradictory ways, and does indeed, as I said, reside within the context of his impending sacrificial death as a redemptive scapegoat which sacrifice you've claimed isn't the substance of Christian theology. In any case, our differences in gospel interpretation clearly illustrate the utter folly of people claiming that God's own truth can be found in a written text.

Unfortunately, the idea that "God" is "perfect" is a dogma that has no means of being proven or even observed. - Lauregon

Neither has the idea that electrons exist any means of being proven or observed. But many atheists believe electrons exist. - Dianelos

As far as I'm aware, there have been no bloody wars fought over disputes concerning the existence or nature of electrons, or dogmatic claims of there being only One Perfect Electron. Belief in electrons has no huge religious congregations gathering to worship them as the proper duty of human life, is not used to coerce or discourage certain social behaviors, and has not been used to terrorize people into anxiety about possible eternal torture in an after-life. The dogma of the existence of a "perfect God," on the other hand, has been used for centuries as a means of authoritarian control of impressionable and vulnerable human beings. For that reason, the existence and perfection of such a "God" person should, as a moral imperative, be supported by clear unambiguous proof, rather than merely being an assertion of cultish theists whose tortured ontology requires that assertion.

49. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #82747 by Lauregon on October 27, 2007 at 1:09 pm

wikipedia:

Presuppositional apologetics is a school of Christian apologetics, a field of Christian theology that aims to (1) present a rational basis for the Christian faith, (2) defend the faith against objections, and (3) expose the perceived flaws of other worldviews.[1] Presuppositional apologetics is especially concerned with the third aspect of this discipline...

The key discriminator of this school is that it maintains that the Christian apologist must assume the truth of the supernatural revelation contained in the Bible (that is, the Christian worldview) because there can be no set of neutral assumptions[3] from which to reason with a non-Christian, and apart from such "presuppositions" one could not make sense of any human experience...

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

Comment #82740 by Lauregon on October 27, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Consider just one example close to Richard's heart, the teaching of creationism in school. Many devout mainstream Christians,-- probably the majority, --take the side of evolution. So when they do have to make a choice between fundamentalists of their own faiths and atheists many do ally with atheists. I think the same would be true for other issues of true importance like separation of Church and state. - Bonzai

On-line, I know of an avowedly mainstream evangelical Christian, a retired vocational school teacher, who claims to be politically liberal, supports the teaching of evolution in public schools, believes in the Second Coming, supports separation of church and state, but at the same time fervently believes "with all [his] heart and soul" that evolution took place for millions of years, and then, some 6,000 years ago, "God" wiped those early creatures out and started over and created Adam and Eve and all the earth's life forms as they appear today. By his own admission, he constructed this scenario as a means of maintaining his faith in biblical inerrancy while being modernist and accepting evolution. (In addition, this true believer can be counted on to issue at least slightly veiled threats of eternal punishment to come whenever non-belief is mentioned). I suppose it's possible that such cognitive dissonance may be an interim condition that may fade away in time, but given the current statistics of evangelical believers in creationism and the Second Coming in the US (reportedly around 80%), I think there's serious reason to worry about the effects of religion on human cognition and the future of America.