1051. Fleabytes

Comment #138511 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Bonzai,

Why do you find yourself here rather than there, now rather than some time else? Why is you not me, or vice versa? Why do I have a sense of self? "Who" am "I"?The kind of questions children ask before they are beaten out of us by education. I think they are vague, usually hard to formulate, seem to have some cosmic significance and have emotional appeals.

Hmmmm.
No child I have ever met has asked "why is you not me?" Not only do I find that not a terribly profound question, I think it is one that science will be quite capable of answering.

I suppose someone might think that the "here rather than there question" is a non scientific one but I believe the cosmologist may actually work that one out. Now rather than someplace else might also be found profound. By who I don't know. Society though had no hand in pounding that out of me.
I just stopped smoking pot.
Maybe that was unfair.

I think Dawkins has an interesting riposte to these questions when he forms one of his own. It went something like this: What color is the inside of a unicorn?
Here is a question that science can't answer but not one that is terribly worthy of consideration either. Just because a question can be formed and cannot be answered by science doesn't confer on it profundity. It may just be a pointless question so vaguely formed as to not be helpful in furthering insight.

1052. Fleabytes

Comment #138501 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Every attempt I've seen to reconcile honest to goodness religious faith, of the kind say a Francis Collins possess consists of a series of intellectual piroutes desgined to effectively disguise what is at the roots an act of extreme compartimentalization.
Every single one.

I wish I could say otherwise but I can't. I've read the books, I've heard my friends make the arguments. It is an attempt to do what Michael Shermer has identified quite well. Smart people are very good, Shermer has said, at coming up with rationalizations for beliefs they came to for non smart reasons. It is simply an unwillingness to part with the comforting vision.

1053. Fleabytes

Comment #138498 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Bonzai,
Could you write out these profound big questions?
I hear people talk about them and I am curious as to what you think they are.

1054. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138493 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Uh-oh William Seirichs,
I do beleive you have just incurred the wrath of Teratornis, though we will see.

1055. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138486 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Steve Zara,
I though Stegner spelled out the program for testing the supernatural. At least in what I've read so far.
We can perform tests for ESP, the efficacy of Prayer, we make all kinds of predictions about what should happen if there is a divine creator and examine what falls out.
It is hard to do when the supernaturalist moves the goal posts after a failed test of course.

The supernaturalist and theologian all retreat back into the elephant in my trunk argument. Maybe its just really small. Maybe its invisible, maybe its hiding in some gap in the carpet and the spare tire well? No maybe over there then.

I think enough has been falsified to put the onus squarely on the believer to prove the proposition of some supernatural thingy and not continue to ask us to disprove a thing.

Though I will continue reading of course to see if I will later agree that he has over-stepped his case.

1056. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138480 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Dr Benway!
Holy shit! You are absolutely correct!
Even silent the avatar is hilarious.

1057. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138479 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 12:27 pm

teratornis said (in his utterly one trick poney kind of way) to a fellow poster's lament that the only way he could see the event was on-line,

What more could anyone need

Just to hazard a guess...community, and interaction. I watch alot of these videos and derive enormous benefit from them. But, gregarious primate that I am, I enjoy being in a crowd, feeling its temper if you will, and having the ability to engage, person to person with other people who share an interest in the same thing. I enjoy chatting, and posting here, but it doesn't do as much for me, not by a long shot, as being engaged face to face with someone, or a group of engaging others.

Sorry, I will be making the trip to wisconsin!
Hopefully others will come along. But if not so much the worse for them.

1058. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138075 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Dr. Benway!
That avatar of yours says the funniest things in the onion.

1059. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138074 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 9:09 pm

I laughed out loud when I read this title....

The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness

I mean how did they find out our game plan? I thought we agreed at the meetings to keep that secret? I could have sworn at the meeting Richard, Hitch, Harris and Dennett all told us that it was to be kept under wraps until we had unveild the new black uniforms. We all clapped three times turned in circle, ate some bacon and beef and pissed on a cross to seal the deal?
Was I just dreaming?

1060. Fleabytes

Comment #137628 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 9:18 am

I was wrong just looked it up on the great youtube.

1061. Fleabytes

Comment #137625 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 9:12 am

I actually thought the metaphor of the "cheesemakers" was...
"he means anyone in the dairy industry."

1062. Fleabytes

Comment #137622 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 9:09 am

Al-rawandi,
I've always suspected that this was indeed the purpose of invoking the term metaphor.
I notice in Christianity though it also gets invoked in the service of distancing God from acts we find morally questionable, like sacrificing your son, or ordering your people to kill every male and male child and non virgin woman.
Its a sketchy business this religious metaphor.

1063. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #137617 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 9:04 am

I just watched this last night. It would be hard to overstate how depressing it is. The Christian guy annoyed me to no end. I just wanted to scream at him, "Change the fucking channel and don't fucking watch it."
Instead he wanted to sue because his God wasn't suitably respected by other people.
And the guy who resigned from the BBC over his unease at the blasphemy of Jerry Springer. I couldn't tell if the programm wanted us to feel sorry for him or not. I did not.
What is strange about the Christian obsesseion with Jerry Springer's opera is that it more about the tawdryness of talk TV and less about being a serious critique of religion- it does after all think quite highly of traditional religious concepts like redemption etc. It seems like a repeat of The Last Temptation of Christ. Christians were in an uproar about that when in fact it makes Christ into a more heroic figure by accentuating his humanness.
Of course Springer's opera is more of the South Park approach to these themes.

Oh and for the Harry Potter fans, do you think that Professor Dolores Umbridge might have been inspired by that insipid lady all clad in pink

1064. Fleabytes

Comment #137612 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 8:54 am

Al-rawandi,
Is this something that comes up a lot in Islam? The this is metaphor that isn't kind of thing? I haven't heard these theological noises much from Islam, but then again I am not immersed in it as you are.

Oh and....Quetzalcoatl,
How did you get a hand book? I've been in this "withouttheism boat" for awhile now and I didn't get a handbook!

1065. Fleabytes

Comment #137608 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 8:47 am

I am curious as to how metaphor and not metaphor are judged as well. It seems an appropriate place to discuss this since this is a vast and varied post about which many facets of this debate have been addressed. It seems the many questions about the world view were worthy discussions, perhaps now it is time to answer some honestly posed questions -that is to say questions that are not deliberately about opening the door for prosyletization.

1066. Fleabytes

Comment #137597 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 8:36 am

Sorry to eat up so much space here but expanding on the point that Cartomancer makes may be helpful.

What on earth could a religious person contribute to a useful discussion of religion that Richard Dawkins couldn't? Why would anyone want to hear less Dawkins for their money, and adulterate the learning experience with the mind-rotting silliness of theistic drivel? Why not invite a well qualified chef or a gardener to talk instead? At least then we might get some good food and tips on looking after our petunias afterwards.

I am fine with a conversation between a theist and a someone who is of the naturalistic materialist set. It can be civil, and friendly. However it isn't really very helpful. I think the language and mindsets maybe too different to make the conversations terribly productive.
If one watches the Hitchens/McGrath debate it becomes clear. Most scientists, rationalists that I have spoken with find Hitch to be vastly, not just a little, but vastly more compelling than McGrath. Most of the theist (admittedly of the liberal persuasion) will either say it was even or even though Hitch made good points, they give McGrath a slight lead. They find the language of theology compelling though. I know I don't, and it is why McGrath sounds like he is nothing so much as a nonsense producing device. However when I talk to my theological friends they find he and his ilk vastly more compelling than I ever could.

It isn't because I don't understand theology either. Not that such endeavor is very possible as most theologians and religious people will happily tell you. It is the mystery of mysteries after all. But to me that just seems like one huge fluttering red flag. This is part of the gulf that divides the rationalist and the theologically inspired.

1067. Fleabytes

Comment #137588 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 8:22 am

But I have to say Artful, that your comment wasn't that offensive. In fact it seemed reasonably stated. So now I have to go make some coffee.
Damn.

Hasn't Richard done that kind of thing though. There is a Time magazine peice in which he and Francis Collins have nice debate. And I think Dawkins engaged with more than a few deists at the Beyond Belief conferances.

1068. Fleabytes

Comment #137585 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 8:19 am

Whoops there it is.

1069. Fleabytes

Comment #137584 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 8:18 am

Hey what happened to Artful Dodger's comment? I saw that he/she/it had posted, and I haven't had my coffee yet. Nothing like annoyance to wake a person up. But I look and voila no comment.

1070. A natural phenomenon

Comment #137583 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 8:12 am

I'm sure that Redford would be wonderful as a narrarator. And I wasn't bothered by Sigorney Weaver's voice either, however I think that it is unnecessary to do. Attenborough's docs have all rated quite highly here in the states and he is a known personality.
Kudos though to Redford and Weaver for participating in such a progressive educational endeavor. I also enjoyed Liam Neeson's narraration of the Evolution series.

1071. A natural phenomenon

Comment #137579 by MaxD on March 3, 2008 at 8:07 am

The.
Hell.
With.
Net.
Flix.

I couldn't possibly be without Sir David's documentaries. I have almost all of his life series placed a short distance away from my DVD player. Unlike Professor Dawkins I came to my interest in ecology and evolution the birdsy woodsy way, and was not first impressed with explanatory power of evolutionary theory. That came after. Sir David approaches the subject of life on Earth from an evolutionary perspective but its the products of organic evolution itself that he highlights.
What I find funny is that the theist tends to think that the materialist view of life is somehow devoid of grandeur, transcendence or mystery. And that it leads to an unavoidable depression at the pointlessness of life. I would point them to any of Attenborough's works and to the man himself to show them the error of that view.

1072. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #137450 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 10:29 pm

I think you are coming to understand this new science quite well Cartomancer!

1073. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137448 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Teratornis, teratornis
you can always be counted on for that can't you.

1074. Fleabytes

Comment #137439 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 9:31 pm

He is a fascinating fellow, in fact the whole wave of theists that have visited us has been interesting. Not their arguments of course which are wanting even with the most sophisticated of theists. Rather it has been instructive to see what they think constitutes good proselytization, argument and evidence. It is also neat they tend to prove our points about where the arrogance lies. It is almost like they are shouting their "truths" at us while their hands are securely clapped over their ears. The theological equivalent of blah blah, la, la I'm not listening, I'm not listening.

1075. Fleabytes

Comment #137391 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 7:30 pm

You think? Hmmmmmm.
I'll consider it. I was trying out rigid thinking, and absolute certainity.

1076. Fleabytes

Comment #137386 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 7:12 pm

That you have taken time to deny it Dr. Benway is all the proof any of us needs to convict you.

1077. Berlin gallery in Islam art row

Comment #137384 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 7:02 pm

It is strange that Islamist always claim that theirs is a religion of peace but they can always be counted upon to demonstrate at what price peace is purchase under their scheme.
Oh yes there will be peace when you other infidels do whatever we say and like.

I know the muslim moderates are not doing this..I know. But the very fact that we can take their religious bullying seriously enough to stop art shows, plays, remove books from school reading lists isn't nothing. I think it is indicative of the larger religious tendency to feel entitled to respect, and at least the passive observance of religious ritual. It is currently just taken to the extreme by many Muslims.

So I think the art show should go on.
What some small groups think oughtn't matter.
Its important to remember its just a picture and
Not obscene, or violent or inciting violence. We
Expect that free speech can be uncomfortable.

1078. Fleabytes

Comment #137318 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Steve said:

Presumably Robertson considers that theology has some value, either in terms of demonstrating truth, or to act as intellectual tar-pit into which Dawkins will get stuck.

I know which one I think it most resembles....but I might have used the term quagmire. A minor quibble...

1079. Fleabytes

Comment #137306 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Hello, Hello.
I can't help but notice that you just attempted to pick a fight on different thread. Why is that not surprising? Maybe you noticed how much more reasonable it was over there, despite the vast amount of disagreement. Hopefully you found that lesson in discourse useful.

1080. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137303 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Steve,
Thanks I think I see more of what you are saying.
Some of the techniques are good alleviating some of your intense phobias and as such have great utility.
This is something that seems like science could understand more, and perhaps even refine by research. That is it could be treated like a medical research program. I bring this up only to show that it could be researched.

Certainl buddhism is vastly different than the Abrahamic myths but the ultimate foundations of buddhism seem just as flimsy. That isn't to say that they haven't stumbled upon important techniques of mental control, and relaxation. Clearly though many people who are professed buddhists are supersticious and share many of the same problems of dealing with reality that our Abrahamic friends do.

1081. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137274 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Steve,
I find it really interesting that scientific ideas don't do much to dispell your phobias. Not because I find the proposition outlandish, certainly it makes sense. But it reveals a bit more of your thought on the subject. Your outlook on usefulness seems then like a species of Dennett's belief in belief.

For me I am constantly using statistical thinking to asuage my worry. Whenever I get on a plane I always think about the stats. How likely is it that it will be my plan that goes down? I am always thinking statistically. That is my antidote to the plague of things that our news medias inadvertantly have us worring over. It doesn's always work of course but I find it enormously helpful.

1082. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137197 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm

On a subject not about Buddha, i do think Bill Mahr is less and less funny. I have just watched most of Mahr's "The Decider." I have to say, I worry that he is becoming more and more like Dennis Miller. That is to say not funny. I like his new rules most of the time and the comedy on his show. But the Decider just was not all that funny. I didn't necessarily disagree with his commentary, I just thought hmmm, when am I suppose to laugh?

1083. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137187 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Steve,
So are you saying then that Buddhism can be all things, and all answers to all people at once? Just researching their own experience to find the truth of....what?
I think it was you who refered to the Dalai Lama on this post. Do you favor his Buddhism? His sect has christened Steven Seagal as a reincarnated buddha, replete with magical abilities like healing powers, and clairvoyance to name just two of his powers.
If not that buddism then what buddhism? I have heard vaguely interesting things uttered by buddhists before but the key word is vague. It all seems so vague as to be useful only in the new agey circles.

1084. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137177 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Well the metaphysical business of many (most?) sects of Buddhism doesn't impress me as being too different from any other religious metaphysics.
But we could measure the effects of any practice of meditation and compare it to other forms of physcial training and no training at all to see if this meditation business is worth pursuing.

1085. Fleabytes

Comment #137174 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:25 pm

D'Arcy,
I think the problem people have with the accusations of nihilism is the smugness with which it is constantly asserted.

Certainly Robertson has given us a trenchent insight into the way he misunderstands the term evidence by trotting out the anecdote of the school bus trip and the nearly bounced check, as evidence of the prayer's efficacy.

One of the other things that I find troubling is the notion that we who don't think there is any reason to believe in gods and such ought to be actively organizing our lives around some Darwinian program. As if we were somehow being untrue, or hypocritical to our beliefs. It is a charge both Robertson and Hello among others like to make. Again they tip their hand by revealing what they don't understand.
Evolutionary theory is just an explanation for the diversity of life. Unlike your myths, we don't impart to this scientific understandimg any kind of moral weight. I'm not sure why this crop of theists thinks this.

1086. Fleabytes

Comment #137155 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Robotaholic said,

I'm tired of the assumption that atheists value life less than the theist. That is definitely backwards thinking. If anything we have greater respect for life due to the fact that this is all there is. That throw-away survival machine comment is completely backwards.

nah dude. It would be better to ask who among we atheists hasn't resorted to mind-numbing casual sex, while whacked out on drugs, avoiding the sense of abiding meaninglessness that comes through drifting through an an utterly dismal pointless existance on a tiny spec in an insignificant galaxy. Where is my meth.....

Actually you said it Robotaholic. That silly bromide about our purported nihilsm and indifference grates on my nerves too. I cannot stand it. I'm quite fine coming up with my own points with out depending on the universe, or God or the FSM to provide me with any.
In fact I think that the perspective that there is nothing after this life- or at least there is no evidence that justifies confidence in any such proposition- makes life in the here and now seem so very much more precious.

1087. Fleabytes

Comment #137148 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Paula said, "But to exploit the tragedy of grieving parents for such trivial ends was, in my view, utterly unforgivable. So no, I don't think we took it too seriously. "

Paula,
Christians are always resorting to this though. Using the grief, or fear of others as if it somehow lent crediblity to their case. What I think is shocking about David is how he uses these tragedies is the almost casually callous way they are employed. Oh we had a six year old girl die today....thus proposition x is true.

Troubling but less shocking, is the way he seems unable to grasp anything Richard Dawkins, or any other poster here, has to say about the particulars of evolutionary theory and the way altruism can arise even though genes seem maximized for something we might call selfishness. Robertson continues to misrepresent, or just not understand, what the New Synthesis is really saying, and how effective the paradox of altruism was in helping us (I say us because science is that most encompassingly human enterprise) solve some of the mysteries of evolution. Something I find neat about science is that when it illuminates a mystery it doesn't do so in the language of theological gobbledygook but rather with data, and experiment.
Evolutionary discussions about a gene's 'strategy' for maximizing copies of itself say absolutely nothing about the motivations of the biological machines they create. Robertson cannot of course represent the very reasonable, and not terribly controversial gene's eye view as it really is. And he cannot do it for several reasons.
I deeply suspect that most important reason for this is that he just doesn't understand biology well enough to explain it to lay readers in such a way that would contextualize his critiques..... such that they are.
I could be wrong about that of course. Maybe he does get it, maybe he even gets the major works of Dawkins, The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. (His constant harangue about meat puppets, machines etc seem to spring from his distaste for the central and apparently, misunderstood ideas of this duology) But to offer any kind of serious critique of these works to a scientific laymen would be a great deal of work for an author whose target audience is likely to be unfamiliar with, if not hostile to biology. And Robertson's style of argument seems decidedly too lazy for any such endeavor.

1088. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137098 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 10:51 am

Steve could you give us a bit more on Buddhism? I mean I see all kinds of it. The Savage guy on this show mentioned that most American Buddhism is of something he called the "Gimmme" variety.
So when you say...

Well, apart from the fun of finding out something new, it seems to be a recipe for living a happy life that can potentially be free of superstition. So it seems at least worth looking at to me.

.

It is often neat to learn something new but as my brother in Guinness mentioned that is a slightly strong generalization. I suppose I'd wonder what kind of buddhism you think is worth looking into. Sam Harris's? His version almost flirts with supernaturalism-which you've noted we ought to be wary of such tendencies. It seems that many buddhists flirt with this language.
Or maybe you mean something like the Da'lai Lama's Buddhism? I would note that he and some of his orange clad crew have said the great and wise Steven Seagal is a reincarnated buddha.

I suppose you are right though that we can garner some worthy kernels of advice from many buddhist traditions. But we could do the same with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and Hinduism and Shintoism.

1089. Fleabytes

Comment #136900 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 2:07 am

On Dr. Benway's definition of atheism.

Some people define atheism as the belief that there is no god. I prefer to say that God or gods have not been proven to exist. In this way I make it clear that I'm not asserting a positive belief. I concede that I cannot defend such a position.

I completely concur. I've always taken the prefix A- in the zoological sense. Anura(without tails), Apodidae (without feet-though not literally) seem to illustrate my sense of A. Theism, I've always taken to mean uh...theism 'belief in a creator that intervenes.' that is from my Oxford English dictionary. Without that theism. Of course our lack of theism could be remedided much more rapidly than selection pressures and mutation events could change a swifts foot and a frog's tail.

What I find so unappealling about the term is how little it actually says about the general scientific skepticism you and I and I dare say almost everyone in here seems to hold. I am always shocked to read about how horribly rigid the "athiest Philospopy" is. Luckily this is a characterictur driven by author's who haven't done their homework. It isn't that we couldn't be convinced of the proposition that God(s) exist, its just that, as yet this evidence has yet to be forthcoming. Until such time we will just have to be without theism.

1090. Fleabytes

Comment #136895 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 1:07 am

I'm sure someone will have commented on this already but I can't resist. Hello's obsession with gravity and its near perfectness as an analogy for Godi Goodness seems to have reached perfections of ignorance with this statement.
He uttered it after Al-rawandi helped refresh the overworked brain of other ways "God" has affected people.

Nothing defies gravity. Birds don't just lift off sans effort, nor do people, nor do bats or insects. In all those cases there is a balancing act going on, a certain amount of downward thrust must be maintained at x speed to maintaint altitude.
Irate-athiest defies manners by cleverly calling you a fucktard. There is no cost in this.
I defy the good sense and taste of my literary friends by pushing things like Stephen King and Frank Miller into their hands and telling them these authors are some of the best you could ever read.
No body defies gravity. We always, always obey its rules.

1091. Fleabytes

Comment #136891 by MaxD on March 2, 2008 at 12:32 am

Hmmmm. I don't post for a few days and look how this board has grown!
A couple of my good friends happen to be liberal religious folk, the typical academic liberal theologian types. They have bookshelves full of Paul Tillich and Joseph Campbell and Monty Python and they argue with me alot. But they at least admit that the there is no reason to believe any other one religion is better, or more likely to be true than any other. They at least know that the the preponderance of evidence is on the athiest's side. They even note that the substance of rationalist thought is quite compelling.

One style of arguing seems to be to do this goal post shifting thing. Ah.. you were talking about X no, no old by I was talking about y. Anytime they get cornered, they rather craftily move out of the cross hairs and then I argue with them about why that ought to be considered an illegal move. There are worse moves though.
This metaphor arguement that theologians like to use is a perfect example thereof. It isn't even worth discussing because they have no way to determine which bits are and which bits aren't. It is just based on their whimsy it seems. It is a constant-so they hope- get out of the jail of reason free card.

The other neat move I see done alot by folk like the unfortunately named "Artful Dodger" is to completely ignore the points of the otherside, especially after having artfully dug a trap of your own making. Ignore the points or call them metaphors.
"Where does the bible say the earth is flat?" Indignant tone...
"Uh....here, here and here and here, and did I mention here?
"DON"T YOU UNDERSTAND METAPHOR?"

I guess no one here does, just like you guys don't understand ad hominem attacks and the concpept of irony.


This business of talking with you folk whose dodging is so, so much less than artful, is precisely as much fun as talking to a brick wall.

1092. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135413 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Hey JuxtaMonkey may I recommend Fiasco by Thomas Ricks as the essential text on the Iraq war and the run up to the war. It highlights all the errors and hubris that has gone into the intervention in Iraq.

1093. Fleabytes

Comment #135411 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Not if the late 1980s Mighty Mouse was helping them!

1094. Fleabytes

Comment #135401 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Diacanu,
I've totally been meaning to tell you this for awhile....that hero ninja from ninja scroll would totally drop Vampire Hunter D.
Like in two moves even.

1095. Fleabytes

Comment #135389 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Robotaholic asked the reasonable,

Will someone please fill me in on the Christian response to this because I have no idea really what their answer would be.

I don't think you will get a reasonable response from our new friend David Robertson. But let me take a crack at it having had to deal with people who take both the alegorical stance and the literal "ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE" stance.

The former tend to do a lot of arm waiving, hand wringing and while muttering some suitably vague liberal theological gobbldygook. While the those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve simply ignore reality. I've encountered alot of both perspectives, and both leave me shaking my head.

1096. Fleabytes

Comment #135383 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Steve I agree with you.

It's about power. Robertson wants publicity. He wrote his book, but that does not seem to have been enough. His current campaign is for a debate with Dawkins. The problem for him is that he really isn't that good. He can't even come up with any new arguments, he simply recycles tired old half-understood bits of theology. I suspect he aspires to be some kind of British Dinesh D'Souza, with lucrative book deals and invitations on chat shows. The problem, and I say this in all honesty (having read some of his "letters") is that he has neither the charisma not the intellect to achieve that.

The more he whines about himself the more he reveals. I am also noticing his deep confusion about ad homs. Every critique is an ad hom no matter if it is specifically based on his conjectures and "arguments" or if they really are ad homs. What is that old phrase...? "come down off the cross we could use the wood."

Not only is he that kid in the class desperately wanting someone's attention, he is every preacher that believes that christians are being utterly persecuted in this country. Despite the fact that this couldn't be further from the truth, especially in the US, Canada and Brittain. He is every believer who thinks there is a spiritual war going on and he is on the front lines taking one for Jesus, and I presume God and the Holy Ectoplasm oozing Ghost.

1097. Fleabytes

Comment #135369 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 9:58 pm

DR said:

Which is why so many of you get so mad when we don't all see the light and join in your hatred of God.

I don't hate God that would just be silly. That would be like going into a foaming paroxyism over someone like the Archfiend Magneto.
Or that prick The Beyonder.
No, no. I reserve hate for things, and people that exist.

1098. Fleabytes

Comment #135356 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Brian English,
I think DR is honest in his committment to Christ. But dishonest in his style and presentation. Half-quoting Darwin say, or Dawkins. Misquoting Harris was a salient example of this tactic. He isn't Emperor Palpatine or anything but not exhibiting the qualities of Christ either. This seems, given all they say about the power of the almighty, like a tell of sorts. If they have to resort to such dishonest tactics to score debating points their case was never all that good to begin.
Such is the temptation of the dark side I guess.

1099. Fleabytes

Comment #135349 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 9:16 pm

David Robertson said the following enlightening thing in response to an assertion about the image of god and what a Christian might mean by saying the word God.

The paragraph that begins with this simply argues against a list of assertions that Christians do not make. Why not ask a Christian, rather than yourselves? The answer to the question is not that difficult. We mean that we are made rational, spiritual beings with a capacity for personal relationship. God is Logos and we are Logical. We can reason, think, love, communicate. To be in Gods image is to be reflective of his communicable attributes.

We are given the bald assertion of being spiritual beings but again as if it just stating would make it so.
Then we get God is Logos and we are Logical. Allow me to quote one of our text book writers, "That sounds like white-noise to me." This is no less white-noisy, "to be made in God's image is to be reflective of his communicable attributes."

I think you have to establish in some way that this critter, God, or Shiva or the Force even exists before you get to this point about talking about its attributes. I am sure you will point me in the direction of the Bible but that is a book I am just not convinced by.

And when you say we can think, reason, love and communicate why do you think you are saying anything that makes us unique. Most research suggests that our minds our different only by degree from other animals. Dogs can think, reason, experience the same neurological events we would call love, and they can certainly communicate. Maybe they are made in God's image. It has been noted before that Dog is God spelled backwards. Or maybe God IS Dog spelled backwards. Holy shit. Maybe Dog made us to take care of dog kind. Maybe dog let us invent tennis so that tennis balls would be invented that his prized creations would have bouncy playthings thrown to them by their servant animals.
Man maybe I am on to something....
In Dog's name I pray.
I know I am not the first person to have discovered dog theology, but I bring it up for DR's benefit, clearly he hasn't become aquainted with it.
Ooops my master is barking oh I mean summoning me for his nightly oneing and twoing.

1100. Fleabytes

Comment #135328 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Diacanu Said:

Wonder if any of it'll soak into David's head, or if he'll just throw up an ink cloud of BS and make a hasty retreat.

Hmmmm....while it was a brilliant rant, I am going to say you should have your bleach stick stain remover handy for that inkcloud, repeated bursts of it too.