or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This. - Page 11

post #401 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

For the sake of argument it's valid to say that I created the universe this morning in my kitchen making a smoothie, then, because there's just as much evidence.

dmz, Groverat is not calling your omniscient god self-serving and contradictory, he's dissing the terms you use to defend the existence of such a god. Read his post.

mmm, no -- how on Earth are you supposed to 'defend the existence' of a omni-whatever God? If groverat doesn't want to posit an omniscient god, that's his business.

Once again: you can't have your cake and eat it too. The omni-whatever god, by definition, can't get complete scrutiny. Now, the Zeuses and Athenas do -- the deus ex machina types -- since they aren't transcendent. But when poor groverat wants to take the Western prototypical God, and throw rocks at it -- as such? It's lousy form, if not protesting too much.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #402 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

mmm, no -- how on Earth are you supposed to 'defend the existence' of a omni-whatever God? If groverat doesn't want to posit an omniscient god, that's his business.

This makes no sense of any kind. You can't defend the existence of any god without proof, of which there is none. Groverat doesn't have to posit the existence of any kind of god because he's arguing against the existence of any god. What point are you making?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Once again: you can't have your cake and eat it too. The omni-whatever god, by definition, can't get complete scrutiny.

I don't understand this sentence. The only one who's claiming the existence of god in this argument is you, so Groverat doesn't need to use the terms you find convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Now, the Zeuses and Athenas do -- the deus ex machina types -- since they aren't transcendent. But when poor groverat wants to take the Western prototypical God, and throw rocks at it -- as such? It's lousy form, if not protesting too much.

There is as much evidence for the existence of Zeus, Athena or Obatala of the White Sheet is there is for elohim Yahweh / JHV, aka 'God'. Fin. End of story. C'est tout.

Oh, and this last sentence of yours makes absolutely no sense.
post #403 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

This makes no sense of any kind. You can't defend the existence of any god without proof, of which there is none. Groverat doesn't have to posit the existence of any kind of god because he's arguing against the existence of any god. What point are you making?


I don't understand this sentence. The only one who's claiming the existence of god in this argument is you, so Groverat doesn't need to use the terms you find convenient.


There is as much evidence for the existence of Zeus, Athena or Obatala of the White Sheet is there is for elohim Yahweh / JHV, aka 'God'. Fin. End of story. C'est tout.

Oh, and this last sentence of yours makes absolutely no sense.

It helps if you actually read my post(s). And the thread.(!)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #404 of 522
dmz, you are being obtuse. You are always obtuse. If you actually wrote in clear english perhaps people would understand you, but, no, you insist on writing in poorly designed riddles trying to illustrate a higher point that apparently only you get.

Sentences. Words. Some semblance of logic. These are required for people to understand your posts...

You abuse idioms. You abuse analogies. You plant your tongue so firmly into your cheek that I am left wondering how long before you have a new orifice in your face... Stop it, and maybe just maybe people will be able to respond to you, period.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #405 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

dmz, you are being obtuse. You are always obtuse. If you actually wrote in clear english perhaps people would understand you, but, no, you insist on writing in poorly designed riddles trying to illustrate a higher point that apparently only you get.

Sentences. Words. Some semblance of logic. These are required for people to understand your posts...

You abuse idioms. You abuse analogies. You plant your tongue so firmly into your cheek that I am left wondering how long before you have a new orifice in your face... Stop it, and maybe just maybe people will be able to respond to you, period.

Obtuse -- my shiny hiney -- groverat was going off on that God 'who is an S.O.B.' for being 'a stupid, self-serving, capricous dipwad.' I attempted to remind one and all that once you hang the 'all-knowing' title in front of god, philosophically speaking, you pretty much give up the right to call god a dimwit/sadist -- it's lousy rehtorical form. The dimwit/sadist god model lends itself more to the 'old man with the beard, sitting on a cloud somewhere' schema.








Oh no! -- it's the all-knowing, stupid-head god!! - no one expects the all-knowing stupid-head god!!

reeeeeaaaaaad the posts!!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #406 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Now, the Zeuses and Athenas do -- the deus ex machina types

from nowhere 'high principle' Marc appeared and told both parties to stop and they complied thus ending years of AppleInsider war.

Is it good? I never got round to reading it.
post #407 of 522
I'm not sure I follow the whole transcendant vs non-transcendant God thing.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #408 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm not sure I follow the whole transcendant vs non-transcendant God thing.

really, there is no distinction anyway. dmz is saying something or other about greek gods being lowered by a machine to save the day in their plays, while following a God that is the ultimate creation of the same machine, (lowered in by the Church to save him from his drinking habit )
post #409 of 522
I think it was pretty standard thinking -- along the lines of Barth or Bultmann and not a few others -- that, there is a god, but it's just not possible for IT to be known by/through any part of IT's creation. "Wholly other."

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #410 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I think it was pretty standard thinking -- along the lines of Barth or Bultmann and not a few others -- that, there is a god, but it's just not possible for IT to be known by/through any part of IT's creation. "Wholly other."

but even if you disagree, can you understand why we would see that as a very devious mechanism to get people to accept something blindly without question. Its a propogandists dream statement...
post #411 of 522
um... then there is no entity deemed god that can be proven to exist.

A Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem of deity, in a sense...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #412 of 522
do you know what dmz real issue is?

He's subtly becoming a muslim.
post #413 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post

but even if you disagree, can you understand why we would see that as a very devious mechanism to get people to accept something blindly without question. Its a propogandists dream statement...

I understand completely. I do. But this business of "yea, he's the supreme being, called the universe into being from nothing, all-present, all-knowing -- but what a murderous stooge...."

It's pretty pointless: if God is a murderous stooge, there just isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about it, except maybe 'disbelieve' in him, (but only after we find out what great big jerk he is.)

...what do you know about XSLT and XSLT-FO?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #414 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I understand completely. I do. But this business of "yea, he's the supreme being, called the universe into being from nothing, all-present, all-knowing -- but what a murderous stooge...."

It's pretty pointless: if God is a murderous stooge, there just isn't a whole hell of a lot we can do about it, except maybe 'disbelieve' in him, (but only after we find out what great big jerk he is.)

...what do you know about XSLT and XSLT-FO?

tip from my crystal ball... to make the 'fo' namespace prefix visible throughout the stylesheet, move the declaration to the <xsl:stylesheet> element.

OT.

Thats their problem isn't it? hehe
They're denying the existance of God by defining God by the God they're denying. Fools
post #415 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

The omni-whatever god, by definition, can't get complete scrutiny. Now, the Zeuses and Athenas do -- the deus ex machina types -- since they aren't transcendent. But when poor groverat wants to take the Western prototypical God, and throw rocks at it -- as such? It's lousy form, if not protesting too much.

I can't tell if you're proposing some God which is available for complete scrutiny, or hiding behind one you conveniently exempt from such scrutiny. I don't really care for the purposes of this thread either, because it doesn't matter if your God is transcendent or mundane, omniscient or dumb as a post, if this God is supposed to explain where life, the universe and everything comes from, it doesn't help -- there's no evidence for such a being, and proposing one doesn't actually help explain anything.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #416 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I can't tell if you're proposing some God which is available for complete scrutiny, or hiding behind one you conveniently exempt from such scrutiny. I don't really care for the purposes of this thread either, because it doesn't matter if your God is transcendent or mundane, omniscient or dumb as a post, if this God is supposed to explain where life, the universe and everything comes from, it doesn't help -- there's no evidence for such a being, and proposing one doesn't actually help explain anything.

I think you have to pick [posit] one and go from there. Depending on that, you will [dis]believe [super]natural revelation, it's your choice.

But continually ripping someone who isn't supposed to exist is, well, 'kinda dumb.

But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #417 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I think you have to pick [posit] one and go from there. Depending on that, you will [dis]believe [super]natural revelation, it's your choice.

But continually ripping someone who isn't supposed to exist is, well, 'kinda dumb.

But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.
But now I'm starting to repeat myself.

dmz, you're starting to repeat yourself.

For the record. God doesn't exist. Sorry about that.

It occurs to me that

shit, I have to go and feed the unicorn.
post #418 of 522
[For breakfast] I may have poached eggs [from chickens' butts] known as 'cloacas' from the Latin, meaning 'sewer' [unless of course] my prototypical elasmobranc!!! Whatever, your starting point is never LUNCH. Coffee? A mocha.
post #419 of 522
Lovely Hassan, really quite lovely...

btw, get your unicorn of my lawn! He is scaring the children...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #420 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I think you have to pick [posit] one and go from there. Depending on that, you will [dis]believe [super]natural revelation, it's your choice.

You can also pick none of the above. I haven't seen anyone demonstrate how picking any version of God them leads anywhere, other than to some sort of psychological satisfaction we humans often seem to obtain from assigning responsibility for mysteries to personalities. Sure it's a choice, but what of it? Believing in the Hassan Smoothie creation myth would also be a choice one could make -- that it's a choice implies no merit upon the choice.

Quote:
But continually ripping someone who isn't supposed to exist is, well, 'kinda dumb.

Ripping on absurd fictional characters, characters which sadly some fellow human beings not only believe in as real but as worthy of worship, is just one way among many of expressing the absurdity of that belief -- it's not (as I'm sure you're quite happy to imagine) a sign that can only be interpreted as meaning those who do said ripping deep down believe these characters are real too, but are just being rebellious against them.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #421 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

btw, get your unicorn of my lawn! He is scaring the children...

If you think the visible children are scared of the invisible unicorn, imagine the sheer terror for the invisible children.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #422 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

You can also pick none of the above. I haven't seen anyone demonstrate how picking any version of God them leads anywhere, other than to some sort of psychological satisfaction we humans often seem to obtain from assigning responsibility for mysteries to personalities. Sure it's a choice, but what of it? Believing in the Hassan Smoothie creation myth would also be a choice one could make -- that it's a choice implies no merit upon the choice.

Good. Great. Wonderful. OUTstanding! Now develop me a unicornian set of scriptures [with long running prophetic themes], some convincing historical records, and a decent theology -- no raven myths, dammit -- and I'll buy a couple of volumes.

But just this once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Ripping on absurd fictional characters, characters which sadly some fellow human beings not only believe in as real but as worthy of worship, is just one way among many of expressing the absurdity of that belief -- it's not (as I'm sure you're quite happy to imagine) a sign that can only be interpreted as meaning those who do said ripping deep down believe these characters are real too, but are just being rebellious against them.

I think that is known as spite.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #423 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I think that is known as spite.

Spite? Hardly. I just refuse to be meek and oh-so-careful in how I discuss religious precepts which I find patently absurd, and often quite offensive. The God of the Bible is a horrendous character. It absolutely stuns me that people read about this particular version of God in the Bible and that they're ever struck with the notion that they're reading a book which is not only true, but perfectly and literally true.

If everyone who feels as I do about religion and theism, particularly when it comes to extreme and fundamentalist beliefs, tip-toes around this, out of fear of being considered rude or disrespectful, they become complicit in supporting the very things which appall them. They help build the shelter within which religion and theism find escape from the full intensity of criticism and scorn that other types of philosophical and political ideas have to contend with, including their own atheism, out in the marketplace of idea.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #424 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Spite? Hardly. I just refuse to be meek and oh-so-careful in how I discuss religious precepts which I find patently absurd, and often quite offensive. The God of the Bible is a horrendous character. It absolutely stuns me that people read about this particular version of God in the Bible and that they're ever struck with the notion that they're reading a book which is not only true, but perfectly and literally true.

If everyone who feels as I do about religion and theism, particularly when it comes to extreme and fundamentalist beliefs, tip-toes around this, out of fear of being considered rude or disrespectful, they become complicit in supporting the very things which appall them. They help build the shelter within which religion and theism find escape from the full intensity of criticism and scorn that other types of philosophical and political ideas have to contend with, including their own atheism, out in the marketplace of idea.

No, no, no -- it is spite -- though it may be clumsy spite. What is sufficient [and accurate] is to say something like, 'I find your philosophy wrong and its implications dangerous.' Otherwise you aren't really communicating -- it's intellectual cow-pattie frisbee at that point -- you're at sixes and sevens philosophically with your opponent, but still want to borrow terms and schemas to 'prove' your point.

What ends up spiteful -- and it may be incidental or careless -- is something like "The God of the Bible is a horrendous character" statement -- it's meaningless to someone who has absorbed that omni-whatever-God schema. Any Christian who has read Job knows that the 'why' questions aren't ours to ask (and that bears out metaphysically.) So the observation becomes, basically: 'yes, I'll posit your god just long enough to fleer him'. Well -- big deal -- we 'kinda already knew that the concept of the omni-God was unacceptable -- attempting to borrow my sensibilities to prove that, is really sloppy.

That's actually more of a general observation, rather than wizzing on you or groverat. But I think there is a sloppiness that we all get into, where we end up in absoulte screaming matches and rock fights -- when we could just place out bets and lay down our cards. (Maybe I shouldn't have noticed midwinter's sig.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #425 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No, no, no -- it is spite -- though it may be clumsy spite.

Oh, well, if you insist, it must be so!

Quote:
What is sufficient [and accurate] is to say something like, 'I find your philosophy wrong and its implications dangerous.'...

It would be sufficient if the marketplace of idea were a purely rational place. It clearly is not. If Idea A is given a safe harbor, treated with careful reverence, and only argued against in lofty philosophical debates most people won't hear, and idea B gets no such deference, I think you can see which idea is more likely to flourish.

I'm not advocating empty scorn and ridicule against religion and theism, but when one truly finds something scornful and ridiculous, and can back up why they feel that way with reason, why hold back any more than one would hold back it addressing other types of philosophical and political issues?

This isn't largely about changing the minds of those who've already thrown themselves deeply into some belief system. It's about the general cultural milieus, one which in the US obviously fosters more religiosity than anywhere else in the industrialized world. I want to see that milieus change, and I certainly don't want to be a party to its perpetuation. I don't want religion and theism to have to recruitment and retention advantage they gain by being especially exempt from certain types of criticism.

As for the Story of Job... that's one of the milder examples of the petulant, vain and sadistic deity found within the pages of the Bible.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #426 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

... but when one truly finds something scornful and ridiculous, and can back up why they feel that way with reason, why hold back any more than one would hold back it addressing other types of philosophical and political issues?

...exactly because it is a differing schema. You're working at cross purposes -- Dawkins takes the same tack and completely flubbed it this in his last book -- it just ends up more protesting too much. A bit boring when you start to give it some thought.


Quote:
...The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they're terminally ill?)...

From a great review of his book, here.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #427 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

...exactly because it is a differing schema. You're working at cross purposes -- Dawkins takes the same tack and completely flubbed it this in his last book -- it just ends up more protesting too much. A bit boring when you start to give it some thought.

It's awfully interesting to me that you keep quoting Hamlet in this thread.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #428 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Good. Great. Wonderful. OUTstanding! Now develop me a unicornian set of scriptures [with long running prophetic themes], some convincing historical records, and a decent theology -- no raven myths, dammit -- and I'll buy a couple of volumes.[/I]

Of course, you've read Life of Pi, right? If you haven't I suggest you do so that you can better understand the context of the Bible.
post #429 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course, you've read Life of Pi, right? If you haven't I suggest you do so that you can better understand the context of the Bible.

Oh now. Don't get me started.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #430 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Good. Great. Wonderful. OUTstanding! Now develop me a unicornian set of scriptures [with long running prophetic themes], some convincing historical records, and a decent theology -- no raven myths, dammit -- and I'll buy a couple of volumes.

I hadn't even noticed this.

Here you go:

1) There once was an adolescent boy unicorn. He was happy. He lived in a little village of other unicorns who more or less kept to themselves.

2) One day, a bad thing happened and the unicorn was forced to leave his village on a quest.

3) Along the way, he met an old man who gave him advice, a trickster who tried to foil him in his quest, and a smokin' hot babe.

4) He goes off, has great adventures.

5) He defeats the great evil in his quest.

6) If we don't believe in him, the great evil will return.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #431 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course, you've read Life of Pi, right? If you haven't I suggest you do so that you can better understand the context of the Bible.

I saw that when I picked up my copy of Moby Dick. It was very tempting.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #432 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

From a great review of his book, here.

A great reply to that particular review here: The Courtier's Reply
Quote:
There's a common refrain in the criticisms of Dawkins' The God Delusion that I've taken to categorizing with my own private title -- it's so common, to the point of near-unanimous universality, that I've decided to share it with you all, along with a little backstory that will help you to understand the name.

I call it the Courtier's Reply. It refers to the aftermath of a fable.

Quote:
I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed -- how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry -- but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

I'm afraid that when I read H. Allen Orr's criticism of The God Delusion in the NY Review of Books, all that popped into my head was a two-word rebuttal: Courtier's Reply. You would be amazed at how many of the anti-Dawkins arguments can be filed away under that category.

That's all you'll get from me on Orr's complaintit's another Courtier's Reply. If you want a more detailed dissection, Jason Rosenhouse provides it.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #433 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It's awfully interesting to me that you keep quoting Hamlet in this thread.

That's because there are more things in heaven and earth, midwinter, than are dreampt of in your philosophy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #434 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

A great reply to that particular review here: The Courtier's Reply

Like I said, it is known as spite. That wasn't an answer to Orr, it's just more of this odd, universally dismissive attitude. There is a difference between constructive engagement and sneering, btw.

...one more quote from that review:
Quote:
Exercises in double standards also plague Dawkins's discussion of the idea that religion encourages good behavior. Dawkins cites a litany of statistics revealing that red states (with many conservative Christians) suffer higher rates of crime, including murder, burglary, and theft, than do blue states. But now consider his response to the suggestion that the atheist Stalin and his comrades committed crimes of breathtaking magnitude: "We are not in the business," he says, "of counting evils heads, compiling two rival roll calls of iniquity." We're not? We were forty-five pages ago.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #435 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Like I said, it is known as spite. That wasn't an answer to Orr, it's just more of this odd, universally dismissive attitude. There is a difference between constructive engagement and sneering, btw.

...one more quote from that review:



The spite you speak of works both ways, as in you will only accept a mindset within you're own circle, those whom, a priori, accept you're Belief system.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #436 of 522
Screw the unicorns, Dragons have historical merrit. You find dragons in all cultures, not just the offspring of some wierd nomadic tribe camping around the middle-east. So let's face it, there is more universal evidence of dragons than god. Hell, I mean even the bible has dragons.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #437 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Like I said, it is known as spite. That wasn't an answer to Orr, it's just more of this odd, universally dismissive attitude. There is a difference between constructive engagement and sneering, btw.

What's the difference between suggesting that someone needs to address countless fine details of centuries of theological noodling before dismissing the existence of deities, and saying that one has to become an expert in textiles and imperial fashion before stating the obvious, that the emperor is naked?

I suspect the only thing that you find dismissive about the Courtier's Reply analogy is that anyone would dare equate religion and theism to the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Tough.

Again, for me a lot of this is about the cultural environment and religion's place in it. While it's an interesting intellectual exercise to explore how one might change the minds of die-hard believers, finding some precise blend of logic and gentle diplomacy which might have a remote chance of reaching through their multi-layered defenses, that's not the most fruitful approach for cultural change. I would very much like a dismissive attitude towards religion to become a louder and more frequently heard voice, denying religion and theism the safe harbor they often enjoy, and leaving those concepts to have to fend for themselves on their own (very limited) merits, without the boost they get from automatic and undeserved reverence and respect.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #438 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I would very much like a dismissive attitude towards religion to become a louder and more frequently heard voice, denying religion and theism the safe harbor they often enjoy, and leaving those concepts to have to fend for themselves on their own (very limited) merits, without the boost they get from automatic and undeserved reverence and respect.

Why shetline, how Stalinist of you -- you shouldn't have -- really.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #439 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Why shetline, how Stalinist of you -- you shouldn't have -- really.

Stalinist? Oh, please do elaborate.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #440 of 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Stalinist? Oh, please do elaborate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I would very much like a dismissive attitude towards religion to become a louder and more frequently heard voice, denying religion and theism the safe harbor they often enjoy, and leaving those concepts to have to fend for themselves on their own (very limited) merits, without the boost they get from automatic and undeserved reverence and respect.

Well, if you are going to start channeling Stalin... at least get it right!
Quote:
Originally posted by Stalin
The Party cannot be neutral towards religious prejudices, and it will continue to conduct propaganda against those prejudices, because that is one of the best means of undermining the influence of the reactionary clergy, who support the exploiting classes and who preach submission to those classes.

The Party cannot be neutral towards the disseminators of religious prejudices, towards the reactionary clergy, who poison the minds of the labouring masses.

Have we repressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The only unfortunate thing is that they have not yet been completely eliminated. Anti-religious propaganda is the means by which the elimination of the reactionary clergy will be completely carried through. Cases occur sometimes when certain members of the Party hinder the full development of anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a very good thing, because there is no room for such "Communists" in the ranks of our Party.

-what a minute, was the quote from a Smithsonian Institution email, or was it actually Stalin........

**checks**

..no, I was right, it's from Stalin.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Don't Believe In Evolution? Read This.