Comments by Radesq

901. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102067 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 1:55 pm

dsouzaphile: What part of the definition of ideology in your 165 post do you believe applies to atheism? Or do you mean they all do?

902. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102061 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Diacanu - (I should have included another even more repressive religion in my previous comment, also a possibility) Otherwise, I mostly agree except that it would be my goal to prevent another evil from stepping into those shoes rather than having to topple the next one (but if necessary then so be it) and I think it would be a very long time before all evil is gone. What constitutes evil has a funny way of evolving to suit its environment. But the fight must go on

903. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102052 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Thanks for your response Diacanu: I don't know if anything will take the place of Christian theology. I am more interested in who gets the spoils (the enormous power and wealth that the various churches now maintain)and what they do with it. I would not try to warn you away from finding out -- if that's what you suppose I might be driving at. It could be worse as a practical matter; an even more repressive Orwellian type of corporation or nation state could fill the vacuum but I don't pretend that excuses accepting ignorance and blind faith of the status quo out of fear. It just calls for Vigilance.

904. This Is Not a Test

Comment #102042 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 1:05 pm

One can be led to ruin I suppose. You folks don't typically take on politicians in this forum though right? I could go on and on about the Presidential candidates here and their religiosity in NH USA but I wont. You're welcome.

905. This Week's Flea

Comment #102041 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 12:59 pm

I was just kidding Bonzai but your point is well taken.

906. This Week's Flea

Comment #102034 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Bonzai: Were pagans moral relativists then depending on which god of the pantheon they followed? I've been told that way leads to nihilism. If the devil goes and God remains and is unquestionably good who is left to be evil(assuming evil doesn't also disappear)? Humanity. That puts us and only us in direct opposition with "our Lord" by default -- yikes! Although I suppose I'm already near the front of that line many true believers would have to be joining me wouldn't they?

907. This Week's Flea

Comment #102026 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Thanks walk: One thing I have never really understood -- Monotheists could really get a lot of mileage if they toned down the rhetoric just a smidge from absolutism. If God was the most powerful rather than all powerful and the most good rather than all good then the logic problem (not the evidence problem) largely goes away. But then that probably raise other issues I haven't considered -- because I haven't seen any need to yet.

908. This Week's Flea

Comment #102017 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 11:58 am

Regarding 81 steveroot & inferno on why there is only one God. Depends on what kind of God you want. You can only have one all powerful, all good, all knowing, omnipresent God at a time. Otherwise they would step on each others toes and always be fighting with each other like pagan gods (this would be impossible by definition). That of course raises (the problem of) the Devil -- who must not really be evil (hold on I'm not a devil worshiper)or else an all powerful all good God would have gotten rid of him. The catch is Christianity needs the devil, I think, because to be with God we seem to need to be against something that is not God. We cannot all follow one God or at least follow him correctly or he would become useless to us. That is why we have different Abrahamic religions, denominations, sects, etc... At least that is my view from the outside looking in, everyone please feel free to enlighten me. Of course you regulars here have probably been through this all many times -- but humor the newbie if you will.

909. This Week's Flea

Comment #101993 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 11:07 am

I went back and read a couple of your posts Eric, and as far as there being ways other than science to understand things about people and the world, sure there are. That's worth discussing but I don't see how God is necessitated by the limits of scientific research.

910. This Week's Flea

Comment #101982 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 10:43 am

So I read the interview...sorry I was not impressed. It sounded to me like the reason there is a God is because science can't adequately explain our feelings and our purpose. So now I can't feel happy or want my kids to do well in school unless there is a God making me feel that way? I can't justify my existence and I must be a nihilist without God? That's a rather Haughty assumption.

911. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #101752 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 10:05 pm

RE: 160 Russell Blackford

The thing that concerns me more than what would take the place of Christian theology is what would fill the social and political power space now inhabited by the various Christian churches? Dawkins & Hitchens touched on it a bit in the 4HM video when Hitch said he really didn't want the argument to be settled. What would winning this debate actually lead to? Where would the money & power of the Churches end up if they lost their flock?

912. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101747 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 9:35 pm

OK so I took a little break there. But BJohn even if I accept that nothing can come from nothing (I don't necessarily) and that the universe had to be created from something outside of itself -- why couldn't our universe just as easily have come blasting into being from a tear in a pre-existing parallel universe? I don't claim it did but it is at least as probably as an invisible omnipotent watchmaker. Just because your GOD is outside the universe doesn't mean he doesn't need to be created to exist. That's just making up rules as you go along - things inside need a creator -- things outside don't, says who, based on what? You want me to just accept your premises so your logic follows but there is no way to test your premise that outside the universe things don't need creation but inside they do. Others with more of a grasp of physics may be able to shed some light on the latter but how in da' heck would you know the former?

913. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101709 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Sure I hear you Bonzai, but this is a very old problem and I am just figuring after all this time BJohn or someone else (if he has called it a night) must have a response in refutation. Some responses have been repeatedly posted over the months but I am too lazy to go looking for them. Any takers? If you can't crack this old chestnut maybe you better find another philosophy.

914. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #101702 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 7:23 pm

BJohn,

Someone must have asked you already (but since I haven't seen it above) who created your GOD. If nothing comes from nothing your GOD must have had a creator? Any creator argument it seems to me begs that question and leads to infinite regression. Something has to come from nothing I think. If GOD can create itself why can't the universe do the same and cut out the middleman? I'm new here but this has got to be the millionth time this has come up so there must be a ready answer.

915. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101675 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 6:01 pm

SRWB 219

But, although I will listen to it as seasonal background noise, it holds no more spiritual significance for me than listening to Led Zeppelin...

I have often had significant spirits when listening to Led Zeppelin -- was I wrong to do so?

916. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #101661 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Softball interview. I know the guy doing the interview was arrogant and annoying - but it seemed to me that he tee'd up questions that he must have known from reading the book RD would crush. The Hitler/Stalin thing for example. Yes RD seemed irritated to answer it yet again -- but answer it he did and the interviewer must have known what was coming. I think he did RD a favor by acting like a weasel but taking a bludgeoning.

917. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101655 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Thanks SRWB also for the history lesson. Steve Z picks this thing apart much to easily. Quill your example of... if you think that's unbelievable try Mormonism is very apt and you could substitute any number of others Christian Scientist, Scientology, Branch Davidianism you name it. I have sometimes thought that starting my own cult would be very prophetable (there I go again) and easier than a real job -- but I guess I just don't have it in me.

918. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101649 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Thanks for the info quill. As for

If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?

I thought Theists were "certain". Faith done properly provides certainty doesn't it? It just isn't amenable (couldn't resist) to objective proof. Doesn't this approach make even the "faithful" lukewarm agnostic? Again,not British or Anglican but willing to be educated.

919. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101628 by Radesq on December 20, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Is that the best they can do? Truth is stranger than fiction...

Mostly I am interested to know, can somebody tell this newbie American what exactly is "barmy" and what is with Alfred and the burnt cakes? I might at least find this article amusing if I understood the context