51. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175549 by Lil_Xunzian on May 5, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Well, to Ben Stein's credit, Beck is Dumber. What was up with the deer and cats? I don't know how anyone could be so glib about killing animals. What an abjectly stupid and evil person.

52. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174911 by Lil_Xunzian on May 3, 2008 at 7:55 pm

I love Chick comics. They're so funny. One of these days I'm gonna bake some magic brownies, invite over some friends, and then we can read chick comics aloud to each other until we've laughed ourselves to death, or at least into comas.

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169336 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Bonzai,

OH YES! I love Mozi. A real genius. Jian'ai is a brilliant idea; however, I think when western analytic philosophers pin Mozi as consequentialist, I think they're letting their own need to impose analytic categories on other philosophical traditions, which is the same thing they do with phenomenology-existentialism. On my reading jian'ai is part consequentialistic, but part categorical imperative. The unborn ghost of Kant can be seen in Mozi. I will send you a list of primary and secondary sources on Mozi if you like. I actually think Mencius' critique of Mozi is fair and from a selfish gene perspective, Mencius' ethics make more sense. The only real qualm I have with Mozi, however, is that he was a strong theist and believed in things like the will of God (tianzhi) and he believed in the "standards" or "paradigms" (fa), which are virtually identical to Plato's "forms" or "ideas" (eidoi). He said that the fa exist in the mind of God (tianxin), just as Plato stipulated that the forms exist in an eternal realm of the forms.

Best,
AE

P.S. There is a Chinese film out about the Mohists called "Mo gong." I have not seen it.

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169301 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 6:27 pm

P.S. We really should do this via email.

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169299 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Bonzai,

Yes they did. The literary inquisition I'm the most familiar with is the one that occurred under Emperor Qianlong during the Qing dynasty. I know about it insofar as it fueled the development of kaozheng scholarship.

AE.

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169298 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Bonzai,

I understand that we are in different professions and that our goals are different. The one issue I take with historians is that they judge thinkers based on what other people did with their ideas. It's like judging Marx by the Cultural Revolution. It's a nonsensical move. One way I check for sense-making is by checking three things: are these ideas clear enough to be meaningful; do they fit together as a systematic whole; and can I draw meaningful, further conclusions from the premises already given? I can do this with Zhu Xi (Song, by the way), so the evidence obliges me to conclude that he is a legitimate philosopher, unlike some postmodernists we can all think of.

Best,
Ae.

P.S. My paper is on Spinoza and Zhu Xi, when I'm done I could email it to you so that you see why I'm not completely down on the man.

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169292 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Bonzai,

One correction: "You have to also understand he was a politician." He was in the civil service, but quit. He spent the rest of his life as an educator: writing, teaching, setting up schools, and resuscitating the a very famous academy, the name of which I cannot remember. He actually believed that scholars in his time should withdraw from politics and pursue a more contemplative life. Just read what he wrote about the civil service examinations. There's not a single criticism that couldn't just as aptly apply to modern standardized tests!

Best,
A. Eustice

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169291 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 5:48 pm

"I don't really care what he wrote."

Bonzai,

Thank you for being honest. I do care what he wrote, but that's because its my job. Martin Heidegger was a genius and "Being and Time" is a brilliant book. He was, however, a fucking Nazi. I accept that he was a Nazi, but also accept that B&T is a brilliant book. I apply the same principle to Zhu Xi as I do with Heidegger. I'm actually against putting philosophical ideas into practice too hastily. I wouldn't be surprised if the consequences of making lixue more than an intellectual exercise was just as foolish making Marxism more than an intellectual exercise.

Best,
A. Eustice

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169289 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Bonzai,

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just want to know where I can learn this. I am not Chinese and I'm not sure what you mean by "Chinese handle." I enjoy philosophy and I am not an historian. In my overall experience, however, if there's one thing historians know how to fuck up, it's philosophy! Historians I've known say the queerest things about Western philosophers, and I'll take it for granted that Chinese historians and Western historians are the same in judging ideas based on their historical ramifications rather than their actual intellectual merit. So far, I haven't read anything misogynistic in Zhu Xi, but that doesn't mean its not there. I'll keep reading. Unfortunately so much of it hasn't been translated into English. I took the Zhuzi Daquan out from the university library, in the wenyanwen, but my knowledge of classical Chinese isn't good enough for me to just sit on my bum and read it. I know that in many respects Zhu Xi's philosophy (or what people did with it, I should say) had many negative consequences, so I trust that you're probably right. As a philosopher, however, I'm obligated to deplore or praise ideas based on their actual intellectual merits--namely, I have to ask the question, "does this idea make sense?" The Bible, for example, does not make sense. Despite the testimony of history, however, to look at the man's philosophical writings on their own merits, Zhu Xi's thought makes quite exquisite sense. I should further add that "making sense" and "being true" are not the same thing. For example, Plato makes sense, but it's clearly not true. And for the record, I don't think Zhu Xi is true. Actually, you've got me thinking, on Monday I'm going to call up one of my old philosophy profs from Nazareth, Dr. Lili Zhang, and ask her about the misogyny thing. Would you like to know what she tells me?

Best,
A. Eustice

P.S. I wasn't trying to be a dick when I asked who Zu Xi was, I thought we might have actually been talking about two different people.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169283 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Bonzai,

Who is Zu Xi? I'm talking Zhu Xi. In any event, I'll assume we're talking about the same person. I'd also like to know where I can read this, because I've been researching Zhu Xi for a philosophy paper. I know a lot of weird shit came out of some garbled understandings of Neo-Confucian thought. The key word, however, is "garbled." The puritan analogy doesn't make sense at all, since his ethical thought was revolutionary, not fundamentalist crackpot shit. Have you actually read any Zhu Xi or read credible scholars of philosophy on the matter? Thus far, Aristotle is most misogynistic philosopher I've come across.

Best,
A. Eustice

61. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169273 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Brian,

You're right. People don't trot that one out enough. However, I also wanted to point him the direction of some books that would shake his idiotic idea that morality and scripture are somehow inseparable. The nice thing about moral philosophers is that they don't end their treatises with "oh, and by the way, if you don't accept everything I've said in the foregoing pages and live by them, you'll roast in hell forever."

62. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169241 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Remnant,

Your argument seems to be this:

If the Bible is false, then there is no morality.

Apparently you know nothing about moral philosophy. Have you read the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle? Kant's Critique of Practical Reason or Zhu Xi's Daquan? Evidently not. I dare you to read a single one of those books and try to understand them. Every single one of them gives a sounder and more elegant account of morality and how we should live than the Bible. In fact, anyone with any training in moral philosophy can plainly see that the ethics of the Bible is bogus and shouldn't even be taken seriously as moral precepts. For the purposes of distinguishing between the thoughtful ethics of the philosophers and the preposterous "morality" of holy books and men, I have thought it helpful to use the word pseudo-ethic. Yeah, Aristotle was a misogynist and believed that slavery was okay, but that's nothing compared to an evil idea like eternal hellfire or suggesting that a human sacrifice could exonerate a person of her sins. I don't want to be exonerated. I want to correct my mistakes, but I want to be held responsible for them. The idea that sins could be "washed away" is repugnant and evil.

63. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169213 by Lil_Xunzian on April 25, 2008 at 4:05 pm

masterbuilder,

Perhaps you should go to your local library and read up on the philosophy of science. Look up Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos. Intelligent Design does not fulfill these basic requirements:

1.) It must be falsifiable
2.) Have a "research programme"
3.) Make meaningful predictions.

I don't expect you to know what falsification and research programmes are, but if you actually bothered to do the relevant reading, you would know.

A. Eustice

64. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166638 by Lil_Xunzian on April 23, 2008 at 11:01 am

"Gu ren Dao mo bu you bian" - Xunzi

Translation: "the cause of being-human entails [the activity of] positing distinctions."

I now see clearly that this is bullshit as well, as these people cannot posit a distinction between reality and nonsense.

65. Lynchings in Congo as penis theft panic hits capital

Comment #166632 by Lil_Xunzian on April 23, 2008 at 10:56 am

"Ho anthropos esti zoon logon ekhon." - Aristotle

Translation: "the human being is the animal in possession of reason."

I now see clearly that that is bullshit.

66. Beware the Believers

Comment #166400 by Lil_Xunzian on April 23, 2008 at 8:10 am

As it turns out, this video was produced by the Expelled people. I hate to have to say it, but I told you so.

Best,
A. Eustice

67. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166009 by Lil_Xunzian on April 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Have these people even read (and understood) atheists' arguments? How many times is someone going to say, "well you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God"? And how many time must we pull teapots out of our pockets and say: "teapot!"

68. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165310 by Lil_Xunzian on April 21, 2008 at 10:19 am

Dear all,

I would like to make a suggestion. Invariably some of us have seen "Expelled," if only out of morbid curiosity, as I have. We should make a request to Professor Dawkins and whoever administers this site. I think it would be constructive to have a place here on richarddawkins.net where we can each write a well-thought-out and well-written essay detailing our individual experiences with "Expelled." We could then read each other's thoughts and get a good discussion going. Is anyone else with me on this?

Best,

A. Eustice

69. Flea of the week

Comment #163464 by Lil_Xunzian on April 18, 2008 at 11:37 am

I'm not surprised. I see a threefold development:

EPISODE IV: GOD WARS: A NEW ATHEISM
EPISODE V: THE THEISTS STRIKE BACK

and later to come,

EPISODE VI: RETURN OF THE THE REASONING

70. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163390 by Lil_Xunzian on April 18, 2008 at 9:26 am

That was very funny. I'm seeing "Expelled" tonight in the ONLY theatre in the Boston-Cambridge area playing it. Pathetic. In any event, I'm hoping "Expelled" will be just as funny as "Sexpelled." Of course, "Sexpelled" is funny-haha, while I'm sure "Expelled" will be funny-sad.

- A. Eustice

71. Anti-evolution bill clears another hurdle

Comment #157191 by Lil_Xunzian on April 8, 2008 at 4:18 pm

FightingFalcon,

I share your sense of relief. Long live New England!

Best,
Alex

72. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152701 by Lil_Xunzian on March 31, 2008 at 11:25 am

Rather than trying to get debaptised, I would be more inclined to use mechanisms that are already in place. I would write a formal letter to my church and politely inform them that I would like to be excommunicated. I might list a few reasons or give a couple arguments concerning why I should be excommunicated, but that in the end I'd just prefer to be an excommunicatee. And if it worked, it would make great small talk.

"So how was your weekend?"
"I was excommunicated."
"Oh yeah?"
"Yeah."

Thankfully, however, I was never baptised in the first place.

73. Beware the Believers

Comment #152317 by Lil_Xunzian on March 30, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Looking back, I'm in complete agreement with clearthinker. I think the meaning of this film is becoming a bit more perspicuous.

Alex

74. Beware the Believers

Comment #152311 by Lil_Xunzian on March 30, 2008 at 4:58 pm

whig,

If you want to get at an Aristotle who isn't Christianized, don't read analytic accounts of him, they're all very much in that spirit, but without knowing it. Try to understand Aristotle through the lens of a 20th century German, like Heidegger or Gadamer, and you might get at a more authentic sense of what Aristotle is trying to do. I'm taking philosophy of biology right now and that's the approach to Aristotle we're taking in the course, it's much better than the analytic accounts I received as an undergrad. It also helps to know your Greek!

As far as closed societies go, there's a great article by Henry Rosemont concerning Xunzi's closed society and how he withstands Popper's critique.

Anyway, Aquinas totally garbles Aristotle and I think it's done a great disservice to the great philosopher.

Final thought: I guess the word I would choose to summarise the terrible flash animation is "rude."

75. Beware the Believers

Comment #152275 by Lil_Xunzian on March 30, 2008 at 3:31 pm

whig,

What they said about Aristotle's "unmoved mover" was true, he did in fact have such a theory and he called the unmoved mover "Theos," or God. Strictly speaking, however, this isn't really a religious concept, it was made one by Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle was offering the best explanation he could at the time and for whatever reason thought it appropriate to label the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause "God." But you're right, Aristotle was on our side (and ultimately, when the chips are down, so is Plato) and I think Aristotle would be hard pressed to defend religion if he were brought back to life. I think the "unmoved mover" is fundamentally the result of the ancient Greek view that everything has a mover or a cause and that the buck must stop somewhere. This idea seems to be supported by the fact that ancient Chinese philosophers, like Xunzi, never found it necessary to posit the existence of an unmoved mover, because their view left open the possibility that things, although they DO follow regular "courses," don't HAVE TO. This doesn't mean that they believed that miracles were possible--oh no! They would, however, have found quantum physics' claim that things at the quantum level aren't "moved" or "caused" quite mundane. A Greek, however, could not submit to this finding; there would have been much wailing and rending of garments. Well, I hope this clears things up!

Best,
Alexander

76. Beware the Believers

Comment #152271 by Lil_Xunzian on March 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm

If I may...

I did not find this funny in the slightest. And since I'm 24, I don't think that a failure to find this cheap little cartoon funny is diagnostic of age. It's simply a tasteless, inartistic, nonsensical nugget of tripe. My impression, as far as sides go, is that it's anti-atheist and anti-evolution. As far as I can tell, this was made by an American, or Americans, and captures my country's tiring anti-intellectualism, especially the militant anti-intllectualism of America's young. The message of the cartoon seems to be something like this: the educated, such as scientists (Dawkins), philosophers (Dennett), and writers (Hitchens), are all conspiring to destroy your worldview, "you" being whoever the target audience of this clip is meant to be. Is it at all clear what I mean about the apparent anti-intellectualism I see? It seems to be mocking intellectuals in the most inept way possible. One example should suffice: Christopher Hitchens's head band indicates " I love scotch." This, I think, suggests an ad hominem argument against him in order to (try to) snub his intelligence. That's just my opinion, but feel free to disagree.

Best,
Alexander

77. The Atheist Apocalypse

Comment #152259 by Lil_Xunzian on March 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Aw, that was cute.

78. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #139162 by Lil_Xunzian on March 5, 2008 at 8:34 am

I want to know where "New Atheist" #5 is--a Mrs. Cinq, a Mr. Wu--or is that Ehrman? Too bad the fact that there are more faithies than atheists will mean that they will yield more publications, but we do need a fifth. I'd do it myself, but I'm about eight years of being able to establish myself as an academic and write a book. I want to write a book comparing, from a philosophical point of view, the ethics of Confucius with the ethics of Jesus. You know, pit the oldest secular tradition against Jebus.

79. America: slouching towards the Enlightenment

Comment #135054 by Lil_Xunzian on February 28, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I'm not optimistic. I'm 24, so between 18-29, and an American. A lot people in that age-range who don't identify with a religion are basically little artifacts of post-modernism. What they believe isn't any more rational or scientific than religious belief. You get inane musings like, "Well, what's heaven for one person, isn't heaven for another...maybe heaven is riding a bike, so...yeah...heaven exists, because bikes exist." I'm not kidding. We're getting to a point in America where words don't mean anything any more, we're all just talking past each other.

80. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106735 by Lil_Xunzian on January 3, 2008 at 11:24 am

As a gay man, I am offended right along with the other gentleman. Only in the case of religion does the reasonable imposition of moderation and, well, reason amount to "oppression."

81. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #102782 by Lil_Xunzian on December 23, 2007 at 4:14 pm

The fact that someone takes "offense" to something means that on some level he is entertaining the possibility that it might be true. For example, if someone called me a "slut," I wouldn't be offended because I know that nothing could be further from the truth. However, if someone called me an "arrogant jerk," I might get offended, because I know that there's a chance that that is true. Thus, when Christians and Muslims get "offended" by things that poke fun at their faith, I think that it's a sign that on some level they really do know that what they believe is preposterous. Anyone who was truly secure in his faith wouldn't be offended, just the same as a straight guy who is truly secure in his sexuality wouldn't get offended by a joke that insinuates that he is gay.

82. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94927 by Lil_Xunzian on December 7, 2007 at 2:35 am

I'm gay, so I'm allowed to say this: that priest should not be a priest; he should be in a gay club, wearing a pink lycra tanktop, snapping his fingers at dragqueens, lisping, "hey there girlfriend!"

83. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94082 by Lil_Xunzian on December 4, 2007 at 6:09 pm

I actually can't remember if he called him a "goof" or a "dope," but it was one or the other. Father is both a Christian and a conservative and he still thinks D'Souza's a dopey little goof-ball.

After all, we're talking about a guy who dated Ann Coulter.

84. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94081 by Lil_Xunzian on December 4, 2007 at 6:06 pm

My prof., a Jesuit priest, begins his chat to the class on how Dinesh D'Souza doesn't understand Kant-so badly that he thinks Kant is saying the opposite of what he really is saying-by saying, "So, there's this goof going around defending Christianity named Dinesh D'Souza..."

85. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92961 by Lil_Xunzian on December 1, 2007 at 8:37 pm

Okay, so I was there. Dennett is amazing. D'Souza, still an idiot. As a philosophy grad student, I find D'Souza's approach offensive and unseemly. Keep in mind, I go to Boston College, a Jesuit University, and I've seen Jesuit priests effectively argue for God (and against him, surprisingly) and D'Souza is just a fucking idiot.

Here's part of a message I sent to a friend on facebook, and I want to here people's rejoinders:

Anyway, HE'S AN IDIOT! Dinesh D'Souza is an IDIOT!

Argument: Stalinism was bad/Maoism was bad.
They were species of atheism.
:. Atheism is bad.

Argument with the same form: Chickens and Penguins can't fly.
They are each a species of bird.
:. No birds can fly.

(Fallacy = Category Error)

HE'S AN IDIOT!

End quote. I can't believe more philosophers aren't emerging from America and Europe's campuses and saying, "What? Are you fucking kidding me with this bullshit?"

My new petname for D'Souza is "poopy-pants," because he talks so much out of his ass, that he's poopied his pants.

Seriously, I'd love to here from you guys. My AIM: gignoskein hodon. My email: eusticea@bc.edu

Best,

Alexander Eustice

86. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91812 by Lil_Xunzian on November 29, 2007 at 11:14 am

I'm so glad I go to Boston College. I've got my seat and I'm going to take notes and scribble down every Souzian fallacy: "excuse me, Mr. D'Souza, I know that God didn't put anything about either formal or informal logic in the Bible, but could you tell me about why your arguments are all structured like this:

Potatoes grow in the ground.
God is the ground of morality.
I like potatoes.
Therefore, God exists.

87. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91363 by Lil_Xunzian on November 28, 2007 at 6:46 am

In any society with its head firmly and squarely stapled to its shoulders, people who were insulted because a teddy bear was named after the founder of a system of fictional concepts would be thrown into an insane asylum.

88. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #73678 by Lil_Xunzian on September 25, 2007 at 8:01 pm

MattInOz,

Your poor friend has just gone insane...literally. Religious ppl are usually crazy and stupid, but plain ol' crazy works by itself, too. Trying to kill yourself gets you thrown in the madhouse, but if you spend your entire life waiting for heaven, getting all teary-eyed at the thought of your own death, well then you're upright and good.

89. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71039 by Lil_Xunzian on September 17, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Someone please tell me, if I'm approached by someone who asks me, "excuse me, where is the theology department?" shall I reply, "oh, um, it's right down the hall from cryptozoology, but if you've gotten to UFOlogy, you've gone too far. Any suggestions?

90. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65112 by Lil_Xunzian on August 22, 2007 at 11:39 pm

Nice, but I would have put it more like this:

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Outing believers as fools and liars: Priceless.

91. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65111 by Lil_Xunzian on August 22, 2007 at 11:34 pm

Just when I thought ID had been descredited and that Demski and Behe had been outed as crockpots...

One would supposed that if the universe had been intelligently designed, God would have designed the rules of logic in ID supporter's favor. How is it that an idea can persist after it's been shown to be both logically incoherent and evidentially unsubstantiated?

92. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65082 by Lil_Xunzian on August 22, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Mine was a bit longish:

While many children where raised in homes with religion, I was lucky enough to be raised in a home with science. Understanding the true scale of geologic time, the massiveness of the universe, evolution by natural selection, and many other scientific facts at an early age, I was never tempted to religion in my later years. Also, in addition to being protected from religious nonsense by an early acquaintance with science, I think I lucked out in another respect: although I suspect that many people understand the puniness of human existence in a universe billions and billions of years old and billions and billions light years across on a purely intellectual level, they have not come to terms with it emotionally. They still narcissistically suppose that there is a god who created the universe with the human species and them in particular in mind. Coming to terms emotionally with our puniness is a very important part of growing up in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, it seems to me that a religious upbringing delays this realization, if it even happens at all. Currently I am a student and majoring in philosophy. If my atheism hadn't already been guaranteed by my science-oriented upbringing, philosophy certainly would have served just as well. I laud all of those young scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who, being in a similar position to mine, have employed their reason in every aspect of their lives rather than engaging in the doublethink necessitated by the uneasy symbiosis of religious faith with rational thinking.

93. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64374 by Lil_Xunzian on August 19, 2007 at 8:43 pm

I am so voting for Mike Gravel in the primaries!

94. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64234 by Lil_Xunzian on August 18, 2007 at 7:26 pm

My best friend recently gave up Christianity after a couple of years intense reflection and (more recently) reading Bertrand Russell. At dinner, I asked her (now that she's not a Christian) to please explain to me (a lifelong atheist) what the appeal of Christianity is, because I could never figure it out. She didn't really give me much of an explanation, but at one point we agreed that "it's just like Santa." She admitted that the only reason she held on for so long is because "it does something for people." And of course, she's talking about belief in belief. On that note, I've noticed this trend in America. Most sufficiently educated, virtuous, and thoughtful people become atheists, nonreligious, or merely nominal Christians. Un(der)educated people, people who are batshit crazy, or some combination thereof choose religion, but they don't go for any of the denominations we've known and not loved since the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic response thereto; rather, they opt for the mega-church-going, bible literalist, end-of-times, batshit crazy evangelical christianity. The middle is disappearing and fast. Furthermore, we're not dealing with symmetrical developments either. America is soon going to be a place where the Stephen Baldwins outnumber the Sam Harrises 3 to 5. And since this is a democracy, the batshit crazy Baldwins win by default. Where's my country?

95. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63697 by Lil_Xunzian on August 15, 2007 at 1:00 pm

One thing that puzzles me is this:

The argument on the theistic side maintains that civilization is somehow premised on the belief in God. Without God, there would be no civilization. I guess the obvious argument against that would be that prior to the modern era, China was probably the most nontheistic society on the planet. That trend began around 500bc with Confucius, who thought so little of superstition, the supernatural, the hereafter, miracles, etc. that he refused to even talk about them. Since him, elite Chinese thought has been focused on the here and now, formulated in overwhelmingly secular, nontheistic (I can't say atheistic), and humanistic terms. Insofar as Confucianism dominated Chinese intellectual history, I should note that after Xunzi, Confucianism attitude toward a god could only be described as atheistic or pantheistic. At the same time, China was by far the most successful civilization in the world up until the mid-1400's when it "went to sleep" and the European Renaissance got going. In hindsight and with a fair minded view of world history, Chinese civilization was more successful than Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, India, and the most theistic civilization in the world, Christian Europe. Europe only caught up to and surpassed China when Europeans did the Chinese thing to do by embracing humanism and secularism at the outset of the Renaissance. So I pose the following question: if we need God in order to have civilization, then how is it that the most successful civilization for most of human history was by and large godless?

96. God in the Military - The Pentagon and its Christian Embassy

Comment #62009 by Lil_Xunzian on August 7, 2007 at 11:26 pm

oarwhat,

I wouldn't be surprised if Pat Tillman was shot dead by a christian. I think in a certain respect patriotism can be defined as a virtue, and this will only make sense if I'm allowed to define "patriotism." First of all, I think it's a species of love, but love as a virtue, not as a sentiment (obviously). People who are just "sentimental" about their country can't rightly be described as "patriots." So, I think I would define "patriotism" as "desiring what's best for one's country" (defining "country" is a whole nother discussion that needs to happen). That's love (and haha I'm alluding to Augustine). That said, there's a big difference between loving your country because it's your country and loving your country because you love Jesus and you equate the two. Thus, Tillman, being an atheist, couldn't be said to have confused "love of country" with "love of Christ," so we know that he must have been a true patriot. Anyone who may have shot him due to frustration over the fact that he's an atheist cannot be said to be patriotic at all, merely confusing Christ for country, which in my mind is slightly treasonous.

97. God in the Military - The Pentagon and its Christian Embassy

Comment #61970 by Lil_Xunzian on August 7, 2007 at 4:13 pm

I think I might be the only American who sympathizes with the CCP's stand against religion, their methods maybe not. But Hu Jintao or a theocracy? No contest. I hope I don't sound too cruel when I say that I hope shit like this makes more people realize that the world would be better served if proselytizing were illegal.

98. The Out Campaign

Comment #59801 by Lil_Xunzian on July 30, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Thank Tlaloc I'm living to see all this go down. I really actually didn't even realize how big of a problem religion was in my own damn country (America) until I left Ct and went to college. Ct's famous for two things (aside from cash-monay and cuteness): Yale New Haven and the pharmaceutical companies (namely, Bayer, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb). So, we had A LOT of scientists and doctors around, so religion didn't play a very big part in most people's lives, even if most people weren't out-and-out atheists. Research scientists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychologists, regular psychologists, professors, etc. abounded! Then, however, I went to college and got acquainted with many of my schoolmates' religious beliefs, and my responses ranged from "you can't be serious" to "you must be joking." For me, part of college was about leaving the Ct-bubble and learning about what kind of country I lived in. It was my sophomore year when I started doing some research into the matter that I really began to realize how bad the evangelical infection is. And it was in my senior year that truly began to notice how nasty Catholicism and Catholics can be. I'm just thankful to Tlaloc that at the same time I was traumatized by the wretchedness of my countrymen that atheists took the next step. COME OUT!

99. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58689 by Lil_Xunzian on July 25, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Philosophers need to be offended by this sort of talk. First of all, in what way aren't these just vacuous utterances? "Religion" means something in the English language, but not here. He seems to insert "religous" where he means to say something else, like "philosophical," perhaps. Like most theologians, he just defines God into existence. "Oh, the way we've used "God" up to now is preposterous because its referent doesn't exist? No problem! We'll just define God back into existence by choosing another referent (even if it means turning "god" into a verb)!"

This is the thing that pisses me off about theologians. They play with words. The syllable "God" is more important to Hedges than any reality that it designates. I mean, if you can just keep redefining God back into existence ad infinitum, then what meaning such a "word," if you can call it that at this point, even have? He even says it doesn't matter if God exists or not, so I suspect he's an atheist and only "religious" in a purely nominal sense. Basically, the "God" of the theologians isn't the god of the religious. And Hedges is even trying to take a step further and take the word "religion" away from the relgious. Hedges: "HAHAHAHA! What those religous folks believe isn't religion! The god they believe in isn't God! HAHAHAHAH!" In this respect, theologians are bigger assholes to religion than atheists (myself included). I mean, who is he to tell 99.9% of believers that the god they believe in isn't God afterall? that the religion they follow isn't true religion? What an ass. Too bad more religionists don't actually wise up to this kind of sophistry. He only agrees with the religious on a purely verbal level, but apparently a purely verbal agreement is good enough for them, no matter how insulting the implications. At least atheists have the intellectual honesty to attack "god" and "religion" in the ways that the religious understand them, rather than the cowardly way that theologians employ them, perpetually redefining them to avoid refutation.

How is his "God" the god of the Bible or Koran? What arrogance!

100. The New New Atheism

Comment #57528 by Lil_Xunzian on July 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm

More backlash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o_3UIhK-Pw