"Science adjusts its views, based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved."
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tim Minchin's "Storm"
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
On Paul Manata and Aversive Racism...
WARNING: This post contains language some may deem inappropriate and, as so, viewable by only a mature audience. Maturity being a highly subjective term and arguable state, you make the call.
As a disclaimer, I am not calling Paul Manata an outright racist. I am illustrating a potential example of aversive racism. That it involves Paul, is merely coincidental, though I will openly admit that his involvement is conveniently beneficial for me, as his notoriety may attract more people to the message. Indeed, in order to argue a case for aversive racism, it is essential that the subject NOT be overtly racist.
That it involves Paul adds yet another layer: providing example of aversive racism truly is the ultimate point of my post, though I will also use it as a means of addressing allegations brought against and attacks attempted on me. Honestly, I had every intention of letting these go unchallenged. I was going to eat it. Brush it off. Not sweat it. I’m not stuttin’ him (there’s more “gangsta” talk for ya, Paul *wink*).
In a comment over at Goosing the Antithesis, regarding my post involving Paul, I had this to say to Paul:
A response is expected and appreciated. Perhaps I misunderstood your post. Maybe you can provide clarification. But I highly suggest you avoid popping shit about me. If that is all you're capable of, then please, by all means, keep my name out'cha mouth unless I autograph my dick. Thank you. [emphasis added]
I fully admit my choice of language and approach unnecessary. Improper? Arguable. Those familiar with Mr. Manata’s diatribes should be aware that, in this context, my approach is not at all out of line. This is not exemplar of a purely academic environment. I simply wished to cut to the point and fully convey my total lack of interest in personal attacks in an arena of debate. I intentionally eschewed formality, general social niceties, and etiquette, to stress this. This is not quite as hypocritical as it may first initially appear: Paul incorporates argumentum ad hominem to the point of excess. I have not attacked Paul personally – I have made judgments on his arguments (“borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel”). A charge of appeal to ridicule may be brought against me, but in my defense, I posit that, through my analysis and critique of his work, I have established just cause for such assertions.
As a Christian, perhaps Paul is offended by such language (I still can’t find Biblical damnation of “bad words”), particularly my sexual, and thus potentially homosexual, allusion to fellatio. I could have substituted “make my name taste like shit in ya mouth,” but that would have changed nothing.
Pauls response:
"'dumb',
Thanks for the above ammunitian [sic] as I use it to show your hypocrisy. You pick on me for being mean and rude to the poor atheists, but then use words like you did above about me? It looks like the gangsta can give but can't take.
[…]
Peace out my brotha from anotha motha" [emphasis mine]
First, as we can see, he has given me a nickname of sorts. In a moment of apparent brilliance, and unparallel wittiness, he has ingeniously, through the mere insertion of the single letter “m”, dubbed (this is a pun) me “dumb.” Total lack of originality aside, this is name calling, and as so a direct assault on me and my character.
Second, my statement has only become ammunition for a new “argument”, as he has been thoroughly disarmed and rendered weaponless on the battlefield of intellectual ballistics and logical logistics in the previous “war” of words to which he is alluding in his charge of “hypocrisy”.
Third: “being mean and rude to the poor atheists”. Note how this is just dripping in sarcasm. Also notice the addition of poor, an obvious appeal to emotion.
Fourth, and finally, here’s where the racism comes in…
My use of such colorful language (seriously - this is not a pun) may illustrate my flair for humor (crass or not). My delivery may even be arrogant. But how is my behavior in any way indicative of violent and criminal-like conduct to a degree warranting the label “gangster”?
But notice, I’m not just a “gangster,” I’m a ”gangsta”. This is an obvious play on what is widely held as a form of black vernacular. I fail to see how it could be anything else, and my point is proven with his addition of “brotha of anotha motha.”
How and why did Paul take it to this level? Even a precursory look at my site may explain. And one need not even read any of my many posts regarding race: a simple look at my sidebar will suffice. He cannot claim to have never been to my site, because elsewhere, previous to this particular remark, he had directly quoted and commented on one of my posts.
But for arguments sake, let us assume he used this particular choice of words as a direct result of what I had said. His decision to include the term “gangsta” is quite telling. He didn’t have to comment on how I said what I said at all, but once choosing to do so, he could have just come right out and made some ridiculous claim of my “talking black” – which I believe he was getting at in his sarcasm, and which in itself carries racist tones.
But he said “gangsta”. Which I think very clearly illustrates a line of thinking that closely, near synonymously, identifies black people - especially young black men - with criminals and thugs.
I can easily draw this conclusion from years of personal experience. Upon hearing language that is perceived to be typical of that used by some black people, or even just as a parody of black people in general (or any aspect of their culture, such as rap music), I have seen far too many white people immediately assume a certain posture, use exaggerated body movements and accent in mimicry, and strew forth some embarrassingly inaccurate string of words no actual black person would ever truly say: Something along the lines of, “Shiiiit, homey/gangsta! I don’t be playin’ that shit. I’mma get me a gat and pop a cap in yo’ ass!” If bold enough, or in what they assume is safe company, they’ll throw in an occasional “nigga” or two.
Most of you, I’m positive, just had a visual.
Risking exposing a bias of my own, I also find it easy to apply a label of racism because of Paul’s very status as a fundamental Protestant Christian, whom I think are merely the housemates, if not bedmates, of white supremacists. I know this assertion in particular will draw heavy criticism, but I firmly stand by it. Later, perhaps in a future post, when time and space permit, I will expound on this thought, as well as the entire topic of aversive racism itself.
My intent here was simply to provide an example.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Don't Presuppose My Supposition...
In a post entitled Atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God made on Sunday, September 25, 2005 at Atheism Presupposes Theism (I could not find a direct link), Christian Theist attempts to even the playing field, so to speak, and show that both teams – atheists and theists – are equally biased.
That our respective positions, in the arena of debate, are intellectually, though I’m sure still not morally, essentially equal.
He gets to the heart of atheistic logic, demonstrates it as inherently and fatally flawed, and then quickly reminds us that this is all entirely inconsequential, because, not only is he right, he is so right that there is an “impossibility of the contrary.” How is this so? Because “without [his] God, you could not prove anything.”
It may appear that he is taking a great liberty here by making a momentous assumption and allowing it to be taken for granted, but remember, he is a Van Tillian presuppositionalist. Also remember that is precisely his point. He asserts this as so for both sides, but I can’t help envisioning him as putting his thumbs to his ears, revealing his palms, shaking them, and singing, “nanny-nanny boo-boo” while doing so.
He begins with a categorical syllogism purportedly demonstrating, well, atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God:
followed by the rhetorical inquiry:
It’s all moot, as no valid argument would be built on such a syllogism: Any interlocutor who is not masochistic or mentally Schiavo’d would never grant such a premise by the proposer, as it would be tantamount to conceding the point.
Nevertheless, I will address it.
The real issue is ascertaining Premise #1, no matter if presented in the positive or negative.
Of course, we could grant that both sides, by definition, presuppose #1 (+/-) and therefore, no arguments could even be brought about without it. This, though, isn't exactly an honest representation of the situation, which I'll examine momentarily.
As CT plainly illustrates when saying: “But of course, God does exist and His revelation about Himself in the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary”, presuppositionalism (in a generic sense, not just in Christian Apologetics) nullifies any need to even argue, as it creates a no-lose situation.
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
The syllogism he’s created here, and taken upon himself to put in our laps, is nothing more than a modification of one we've presented from day one (or at least since about 150 CE when the closest thing to a Christian canon was recognized – only to later be declared heretical. Protestant Christians like CT would have to wait until about 1647 CE when the Bible – as it is canonized, closed, and presented today – was essentially voted into existence. But I digress.)
The syllogism is as follows:
Syllogism C (“C” for Christian)
Premise #1: God exists
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God exists, the Bible is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is true and God does exist
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
But what if we reduce it one level further, and substitute “D” (deity) for “God” and “R” (revelation) for “Bible”:
Syllogism T (“T” for Theist)
Premise #1: D exists
Premise #2: The R claims to be inspired of D and therefore true
Premise #3: Since D exists, the R is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The R claims D exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The R is true and D does exist
Deity and Revelation replaced with God and Bible, Christians have no trouble with this.
But experiment replacing D and R with any OTHER belief system-appropriate substitutes (e.g. Allah/al Qu'ran, Ahura-Mazda/Vesta, Zeus/Illiad, Devi/Devi Mahatmyam, Necronomicon/Cthulhu, The Book of the Dead/Thoth, YHWH/Tanakh, et al.*) and Christian approval won't be so forthcoming.
This is another reason why, from anything other than a presuppositional perspective, this is a flawed syllogism. It relies on far too many conditions.
Alas, I present, as an objection to CT’s Syllogism A:
Atheism does not claim God does not exist - not explicitly. Atheists lack a belief in god. There is a difference, and it is pertinent enough to eradicate his syllogism.
I should also emphasize that atheists rarely attempt to disprove god “by an appeal to the Bible”, nor does one necessarily have and “axe to grind” with either the Bible or its god. The former is usually thrust upon us when the Christian introduces the Bible as defense in our argument against the existence of adequate evidence for a god, and the latter is an unfortunately common and equally false misconception, which is only perpetuated as an appeal to emotion.
The entire concept of an atheist appealing to the Bible is rather absurd. The Bible is completely irrelevant to our position until made so by parties outside our ranks (remember here that athiests existed before the Bible, and it can be argued that all humans are born atheist). Even once the Bible has been injected into the argument, an atheist's “appeal” to it is usually no more than a simple prompt for one to read it sans bias and compare its content to its adherents assigned properties of its god.
One of my personal peeves regarding Christians centers on, as I see it, an incongruence with their (modern popular) beliefs and what the Bible in fact contains. I, as an individual, may then use the Bible to argue the qualities or characteristics ascribed to their god as a preliminary to attempting to provide a case for there being no sound reason to belief in any god. But I am in no way the representative embodiment of all atheists.
I will not address CT’s vaulting of the Christian worldview's “account for universal, invariant laws of logic and morality, and the uniformity of nature” above all others. This is far too broad a statement, far too arrogant, and far too unsupported in and by world history.
Finally, I will address an issue I realize with his proclamation:
"My position is that Christian Theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. If Christian Theism were not true, you could not prove anything."
His status as a Presuppositionalist explains the “impossibility” part, but he MUST insert some prepositional phrase before that period (aside from "at all").
“Impossibility” and “anything” are absolutes to the superfluous, and this is just an unfinished statement.
CT begins presenting an argument for God, but in this statement extends that with a presupposition that Jesus existed in the most full-blown, glorified sense – complete with deification. I realize that to CT, Yoshua ben Yosef IS God, but what of every theism that existed before, parallel with, and since - completely independent of - Christianity?
If it is impossible to be false, then nothing else can be true (am I assuming here, or is everyother theistic belief also true?). So, before some people got together and decided what they were going to believe as Christians, depending on which writings they were going to accept, nothing was true?
What about Judaism before Christianity? Christians can’t just claim to be an extension or continuance of Judaism, because the bulk of their fundamental dogma completely conflicts with Judaic belief (thus non-Christian Jews remain). It’s comparable to Jews being considered Babylonians by faith. Some could argue that Islam has an equal or greater claim as such an extension.
Predestination aside, CT would be declaring the religion his is (loosely) based on – the very religion his supposed messiah would have practiced – false.
(So, God knew that everything he was “inspiring” these “prophets” to write was temporary, and could later be completely contradicted? Why not? He “knew” that Eve would fuck up and He would have to kill everybody but Noah and eventually have to kill even himself.)
The only way to fix this is with predestination, and thus CT is adding yet one more piece to his puzzle. It appears his original assumption is quite a bit more specific than “God exists”: “An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Protestant Christian God exists” seems more along the line, and such a precise supposition is QUITE different than one as broad as “god doesn’t exist.”
His field is hardly level.
*I’ll grant I took a liberty with some of these as “revelation,” but my point stands.
That our respective positions, in the arena of debate, are intellectually, though I’m sure still not morally, essentially equal.
He gets to the heart of atheistic logic, demonstrates it as inherently and fatally flawed, and then quickly reminds us that this is all entirely inconsequential, because, not only is he right, he is so right that there is an “impossibility of the contrary.” How is this so? Because “without [his] God, you could not prove anything.”
It may appear that he is taking a great liberty here by making a momentous assumption and allowing it to be taken for granted, but remember, he is a Van Tillian presuppositionalist. Also remember that is precisely his point. He asserts this as so for both sides, but I can’t help envisioning him as putting his thumbs to his ears, revealing his palms, shaking them, and singing, “nanny-nanny boo-boo” while doing so.
He begins with a categorical syllogism purportedly demonstrating, well, atheistic reasoning concerning the Bible and God:
Syllogism A (“A” for Atheistic)
Premise #1: God doesn't exist
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God doesn't exist, the Bible isn't inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is not true and God does not exist
followed by the rhetorical inquiry:
Can anyone say “circular”? No? Can you say, “begging the question”?
It’s all moot, as no valid argument would be built on such a syllogism: Any interlocutor who is not masochistic or mentally Schiavo’d would never grant such a premise by the proposer, as it would be tantamount to conceding the point.
Nevertheless, I will address it.
The real issue is ascertaining Premise #1, no matter if presented in the positive or negative.
Of course, we could grant that both sides, by definition, presuppose #1 (+/-) and therefore, no arguments could even be brought about without it. This, though, isn't exactly an honest representation of the situation, which I'll examine momentarily.
As CT plainly illustrates when saying: “But of course, God does exist and His revelation about Himself in the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary”, presuppositionalism (in a generic sense, not just in Christian Apologetics) nullifies any need to even argue, as it creates a no-lose situation.
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
The syllogism he’s created here, and taken upon himself to put in our laps, is nothing more than a modification of one we've presented from day one (or at least since about 150 CE when the closest thing to a Christian canon was recognized – only to later be declared heretical. Protestant Christians like CT would have to wait until about 1647 CE when the Bible – as it is canonized, closed, and presented today – was essentially voted into existence. But I digress.)
The syllogism is as follows:
Syllogism C (“C” for Christian)
Premise #1: God exists
Premise #2: The Bible claims to be inspired of God and therefore true
Premise #3: Since God exists, the Bible is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The Bible claims God exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The Bible is true and God does exist
“Can anyone say ‘circular’? No? Can you say, ‘begging the question’?”
But what if we reduce it one level further, and substitute “D” (deity) for “God” and “R” (revelation) for “Bible”:
Syllogism T (“T” for Theist)
Premise #1: D exists
Premise #2: The R claims to be inspired of D and therefore true
Premise #3: Since D exists, the R is inspired of Him
Premise #4: The R claims D exists.
--------------------------
Conclusion: The R is true and D does exist
Deity and Revelation replaced with God and Bible, Christians have no trouble with this.
But experiment replacing D and R with any OTHER belief system-appropriate substitutes (e.g. Allah/al Qu'ran, Ahura-Mazda/Vesta, Zeus/Illiad, Devi/Devi Mahatmyam, Necronomicon/Cthulhu, The Book of the Dead/Thoth, YHWH/Tanakh, et al.*) and Christian approval won't be so forthcoming.
This is another reason why, from anything other than a presuppositional perspective, this is a flawed syllogism. It relies on far too many conditions.
Alas, I present, as an objection to CT’s Syllogism A:
Atheism does not claim God does not exist - not explicitly. Atheists lack a belief in god. There is a difference, and it is pertinent enough to eradicate his syllogism.
I should also emphasize that atheists rarely attempt to disprove god “by an appeal to the Bible”, nor does one necessarily have and “axe to grind” with either the Bible or its god. The former is usually thrust upon us when the Christian introduces the Bible as defense in our argument against the existence of adequate evidence for a god, and the latter is an unfortunately common and equally false misconception, which is only perpetuated as an appeal to emotion.
The entire concept of an atheist appealing to the Bible is rather absurd. The Bible is completely irrelevant to our position until made so by parties outside our ranks (remember here that athiests existed before the Bible, and it can be argued that all humans are born atheist). Even once the Bible has been injected into the argument, an atheist's “appeal” to it is usually no more than a simple prompt for one to read it sans bias and compare its content to its adherents assigned properties of its god.
One of my personal peeves regarding Christians centers on, as I see it, an incongruence with their (modern popular) beliefs and what the Bible in fact contains. I, as an individual, may then use the Bible to argue the qualities or characteristics ascribed to their god as a preliminary to attempting to provide a case for there being no sound reason to belief in any god. But I am in no way the representative embodiment of all atheists.
I will not address CT’s vaulting of the Christian worldview's “account for universal, invariant laws of logic and morality, and the uniformity of nature” above all others. This is far too broad a statement, far too arrogant, and far too unsupported in and by world history.
Finally, I will address an issue I realize with his proclamation:
"My position is that Christian Theism is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. If Christian Theism were not true, you could not prove anything."
His status as a Presuppositionalist explains the “impossibility” part, but he MUST insert some prepositional phrase before that period (aside from "at all").
“Impossibility” and “anything” are absolutes to the superfluous, and this is just an unfinished statement.
CT begins presenting an argument for God, but in this statement extends that with a presupposition that Jesus existed in the most full-blown, glorified sense – complete with deification. I realize that to CT, Yoshua ben Yosef IS God, but what of every theism that existed before, parallel with, and since - completely independent of - Christianity?
If it is impossible to be false, then nothing else can be true (am I assuming here, or is everyother theistic belief also true?). So, before some people got together and decided what they were going to believe as Christians, depending on which writings they were going to accept, nothing was true?
What about Judaism before Christianity? Christians can’t just claim to be an extension or continuance of Judaism, because the bulk of their fundamental dogma completely conflicts with Judaic belief (thus non-Christian Jews remain). It’s comparable to Jews being considered Babylonians by faith. Some could argue that Islam has an equal or greater claim as such an extension.
Predestination aside, CT would be declaring the religion his is (loosely) based on – the very religion his supposed messiah would have practiced – false.
(So, God knew that everything he was “inspiring” these “prophets” to write was temporary, and could later be completely contradicted? Why not? He “knew” that Eve would fuck up and He would have to kill everybody but Noah and eventually have to kill even himself.)
The only way to fix this is with predestination, and thus CT is adding yet one more piece to his puzzle. It appears his original assumption is quite a bit more specific than “God exists”: “An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, Protestant Christian God exists” seems more along the line, and such a precise supposition is QUITE different than one as broad as “god doesn’t exist.”
His field is hardly level.
*I’ll grant I took a liberty with some of these as “revelation,” but my point stands.
A Compromise...
Over at The Evangelical Atheist, ~I AM~ has created yet another post that will easily collect near 100 comments. And rightfully so.
I, predicatably, got swept up in the commenting, and, lacking any discernable proclivity for terseness, penned a novella of sorts in response:
Both CT (Christian Theist) and Chad get right to the crux of the real issue (quite eloquently so, I must add). Bottom line, this is head butting, and the subsequent butting of heads on the wall is what works us into frenzy. These may just be irreconcilable differences. Our very view on existence is so vastly different we are nearly polar opposites.
But we recognize we aren't polar opposites. Our very nature of being human dictates this, but this rift lies at a level so essential to our actions - which define our existence - that it seemingly can not be ignored.
We (atheists) do indeed value reason, rationality, and logic so completely that they form a virtual trinity. I'm not saying that theists don't value reason, just that, in my opinion, they value not needing a reason even more so.
WE, on the other hand, need that reason. At times I think we fiend for it.
So We argue protocol. I would like to think us all naturally averse (or at least indifferent) to discord, and where there is a disagreement, there is a chance of solution. WE focus so completely on things of PROOF, or at least testing (i.e. science, math, logic), that we insist on it in everything. Of course We do, and I'm not at all saying that We're wrong in this, but We must acknowledge, and concede, that nobody else HAS to. Conversely, I'd hope theists can see why this prospect can be horrifying to an atheist.
In a society depending on human interaction, laws, based on value and enforced through judgment, are a necessity, and proper evaluation is paramount. Regardless of the nature of morality's origin, can we rely on morals alone to settle claims fairly? A central tenet of Christian belief is the fallibility of man, and without developments of the human mind - of our cognitive process through reason - our moral codes would not have a vessel for delivery. We apply logic to decide IF morals should be applied or not. We utilize advancements in science to investigate (forensics) and prove (DNA evidence) guilt or innocence - beyond merely questioning it. THEN we can apply morality in judgment.
Our prosperity too cannot be increased without stringent protocol. Theists acknowledge this when they go to a doctor, drive to church, turn on a television to watch evangelism, and log onto the internet to wage war with We infidels (j/k). The scientific method made all of that possible.
When a difference of opinion is recognized, and the next step - to investigate and consequently attempt to resolve it - is taken, the participants enter this realm of protocol, logic, and reason. Theists must then understand: you're on Our home court now. This is why We insist so strongly on concepts such as burden of proof. An established process is in place, and this dictates the rules of the game.
This brings about a conflict in the atheist's mind: As bewildering and infuriating as it is for Us to deal with people who won't play by the rules, We are still moved – compelled - to engage. Our system dictates that we MUST, but, at the same time, We feel if you won't, or are incapable of, abiding by these rules, then don't bother getting involved. Just don't assert your position. Add to this a previous observation of theists abiding by the very same principles, in the larger sphere of things, that they eschew in the arena (such as going to the doctor when ill) and we are beset with a maddening sense of hypocrisy.
What you must not forget is the very real implications this has on our lives. This is unavoidable. We all do live together, and that will not change - nor do I really feel we wish it truly would.
In our world theists preach personal salvation, a personal relationship with their god, a personal Faith.
Then keep it personal. Pardon my directness, but don't push your personal belief on our public sphere.
Here, again, morality is sure to rear its multi-faced head, but please, just bear with me…
Our system of protocol is established. Its practice is widespread and its merit apparent - personal value given, or faith taken in it may vary, but we cannot, and more importantly do not deny it.
When we and the ones we love are ill, we take them to get a diagnosis. If that diagnosis is threatening, we act and look to treatment. If a crime is committed against us, we urge a systematic, deductive, forensic investigation (and subsequent procedure of debate) in hopes justice can be served, and retribution paid.
Some of us also appeal to and enlist other help, and employ additional methods. And this is their personal choice and right, as much as it is mine to not.
I, personally, am definitely not 100% satisfied with the mechanics of the system we have in place (here along the lines of the social system, not scientific system), and I’d be a fool to suggest anybody is. But, overall, we ALL reap the benefits.
Don’t remind me that you believe in a god every time I look at money. Don’t have me fear that a prejudice against me due to my belief system will affect me negatively. Don’t decide my personal decisions. Do not impose your will on me. Let us have a system that centers on the personal FREE WILL your religion emphasizes. Let us have a system that allows ALL personal choice. Vote officials to a position of power that will affect ALL of us based on their track record pertaining to the task at hand, and their personal merit, not their personal belief.
We have enough prejudice and discrimination based on how people look. That is exterior and can’t be avoided. Let’s not extend it internally, and base it on belief or opinion - remember, neither HAS to be expressed: that is a choice.
This is in no way an urge to deny or hide WHO you are, but in a system that is blind to personal beliefs, no one’s personal beliefs can be infringed upon.
{For instance, when testifying in court, by not swearing on a Bible, I may deem myself untrustworthy to Christian jurors, but if this were not an option, such potential prejudice is completely circumvented. A serious theist who subscribes to a system of belief that emphasizes sound moral action – e.g. honesty – should not be compelled by the simple omission of a Bible to go against such standards.}
When I decide I don’t want my child acknowledging a god I have no belief in as a condition to her proclamation and affirmation of her citizenship of this nation, it has no ill effect on those who do – nor does their silent approbation.
This in no way prohibits your personal faith or beliefs. If I run up on you, snatch off your symbol (cross, WWJD bracelet, Jesus fish), and lock up your church, THAT is prohibition. That is a violation of your rights.
Uncertainty about equality and fairness are certain. But theists here, especially Christians, have a bonus. Your God loves you. Your God favors you. Your religion is full of examples and promises of this. You have your own system to guarantee it – the same system I’m requesting you not push on me. Afterall, this world is temporary. YOU have a greater goal. But my world is finite. This is it for me, and prosperity in this life is my goal.
The very Faith you rely on so thoroughly to support the positions We attempt to argue with you, should not only pertain to the reason why you believe, it should dictate how you live.
Your God should protect you. This is what you preach! Have faith in it and live by it. Hold that Faith that you will not be ill-effected in our system. I don’t mean to sound at all insensitive, but heck, even if Our proposed system does affect you adversely, it’s only temporal. If you swear by a religion that promises not only eternal happiness, but earthly struggle beforehand, why are you so scared at and averse to the prospect of the fulfillment of that promise? Christianity, in its Gospels, champions the underdog so thoroughly, but most Christians fail to embody this. Rather than submit to their Heavenly Authority, they’d rather BE the authority.
I am not at all proposing a system that will discriminate against those of Faith – ANY faith - or disproportionately benefit the faithless. Nor will I allow such a system, and if one arose, I would martyr myself to the cause of liberty and equality alongside those martyring themselves to a god in which I don’t believe. In all actuality, I’m suggesting a system that a revolutionary group of men put forth in the late eighteenth century.
This is not (expressly) a political forum, and pardon my venture into this realm.
If two men (or women) desire to get married, or to merely be attracted to one another and act on that affinity, it does not reflect on you personally. If these two individuals carry through with their desires, you are not personally hurt. If we prevent them from doing so, it is not going to set in motion the eventual extinction of homosexuality. If we outlaw abortion, abortion won’t stop, nor will miscarriages or even death itself. You may view it as murder and be terrified, but as long as it isn’t mandated, it is a murder that can be guaranteed to never be perpetrated against you or those you love. If we outlaw stem cell research, the abundance of human embryos that already exist due to fertilization efforts will not simply cease to be.
I am not homosexual. It is physically impossible for me to get an abortion. I am not personally presently afflicted with a terminal disease (other than life itself).
But I desire that we not legislate or dictate activity between our fellow grown, mutually consenting, competent humans, which does not directly assault us physically or prohibit our prosperity personally – unless for the greater good of humanity.
(Remember – your God looked out for Noah and Lot.)
In the arena of debate, we can argue all we want, regardless of who does and doesn’t decide to follow the rules. But in the arena of public life we need to practice what we preach.
Just have faith.
I, predicatably, got swept up in the commenting, and, lacking any discernable proclivity for terseness, penned a novella of sorts in response:
Both CT (Christian Theist) and Chad get right to the crux of the real issue (quite eloquently so, I must add). Bottom line, this is head butting, and the subsequent butting of heads on the wall is what works us into frenzy. These may just be irreconcilable differences. Our very view on existence is so vastly different we are nearly polar opposites.
But we recognize we aren't polar opposites. Our very nature of being human dictates this, but this rift lies at a level so essential to our actions - which define our existence - that it seemingly can not be ignored.
We (atheists) do indeed value reason, rationality, and logic so completely that they form a virtual trinity. I'm not saying that theists don't value reason, just that, in my opinion, they value not needing a reason even more so.
WE, on the other hand, need that reason. At times I think we fiend for it.
So We argue protocol. I would like to think us all naturally averse (or at least indifferent) to discord, and where there is a disagreement, there is a chance of solution. WE focus so completely on things of PROOF, or at least testing (i.e. science, math, logic), that we insist on it in everything. Of course We do, and I'm not at all saying that We're wrong in this, but We must acknowledge, and concede, that nobody else HAS to. Conversely, I'd hope theists can see why this prospect can be horrifying to an atheist.
In a society depending on human interaction, laws, based on value and enforced through judgment, are a necessity, and proper evaluation is paramount. Regardless of the nature of morality's origin, can we rely on morals alone to settle claims fairly? A central tenet of Christian belief is the fallibility of man, and without developments of the human mind - of our cognitive process through reason - our moral codes would not have a vessel for delivery. We apply logic to decide IF morals should be applied or not. We utilize advancements in science to investigate (forensics) and prove (DNA evidence) guilt or innocence - beyond merely questioning it. THEN we can apply morality in judgment.
Our prosperity too cannot be increased without stringent protocol. Theists acknowledge this when they go to a doctor, drive to church, turn on a television to watch evangelism, and log onto the internet to wage war with We infidels (j/k). The scientific method made all of that possible.
When a difference of opinion is recognized, and the next step - to investigate and consequently attempt to resolve it - is taken, the participants enter this realm of protocol, logic, and reason. Theists must then understand: you're on Our home court now. This is why We insist so strongly on concepts such as burden of proof. An established process is in place, and this dictates the rules of the game.
This brings about a conflict in the atheist's mind: As bewildering and infuriating as it is for Us to deal with people who won't play by the rules, We are still moved – compelled - to engage. Our system dictates that we MUST, but, at the same time, We feel if you won't, or are incapable of, abiding by these rules, then don't bother getting involved. Just don't assert your position. Add to this a previous observation of theists abiding by the very same principles, in the larger sphere of things, that they eschew in the arena (such as going to the doctor when ill) and we are beset with a maddening sense of hypocrisy.
What you must not forget is the very real implications this has on our lives. This is unavoidable. We all do live together, and that will not change - nor do I really feel we wish it truly would.
In our world theists preach personal salvation, a personal relationship with their god, a personal Faith.
Then keep it personal. Pardon my directness, but don't push your personal belief on our public sphere.
Here, again, morality is sure to rear its multi-faced head, but please, just bear with me…
Our system of protocol is established. Its practice is widespread and its merit apparent - personal value given, or faith taken in it may vary, but we cannot, and more importantly do not deny it.
When we and the ones we love are ill, we take them to get a diagnosis. If that diagnosis is threatening, we act and look to treatment. If a crime is committed against us, we urge a systematic, deductive, forensic investigation (and subsequent procedure of debate) in hopes justice can be served, and retribution paid.
Some of us also appeal to and enlist other help, and employ additional methods. And this is their personal choice and right, as much as it is mine to not.
I, personally, am definitely not 100% satisfied with the mechanics of the system we have in place (here along the lines of the social system, not scientific system), and I’d be a fool to suggest anybody is. But, overall, we ALL reap the benefits.
Don’t remind me that you believe in a god every time I look at money. Don’t have me fear that a prejudice against me due to my belief system will affect me negatively. Don’t decide my personal decisions. Do not impose your will on me. Let us have a system that centers on the personal FREE WILL your religion emphasizes. Let us have a system that allows ALL personal choice. Vote officials to a position of power that will affect ALL of us based on their track record pertaining to the task at hand, and their personal merit, not their personal belief.
We have enough prejudice and discrimination based on how people look. That is exterior and can’t be avoided. Let’s not extend it internally, and base it on belief or opinion - remember, neither HAS to be expressed: that is a choice.
This is in no way an urge to deny or hide WHO you are, but in a system that is blind to personal beliefs, no one’s personal beliefs can be infringed upon.
{For instance, when testifying in court, by not swearing on a Bible, I may deem myself untrustworthy to Christian jurors, but if this were not an option, such potential prejudice is completely circumvented. A serious theist who subscribes to a system of belief that emphasizes sound moral action – e.g. honesty – should not be compelled by the simple omission of a Bible to go against such standards.}
When I decide I don’t want my child acknowledging a god I have no belief in as a condition to her proclamation and affirmation of her citizenship of this nation, it has no ill effect on those who do – nor does their silent approbation.
This in no way prohibits your personal faith or beliefs. If I run up on you, snatch off your symbol (cross, WWJD bracelet, Jesus fish), and lock up your church, THAT is prohibition. That is a violation of your rights.
Uncertainty about equality and fairness are certain. But theists here, especially Christians, have a bonus. Your God loves you. Your God favors you. Your religion is full of examples and promises of this. You have your own system to guarantee it – the same system I’m requesting you not push on me. Afterall, this world is temporary. YOU have a greater goal. But my world is finite. This is it for me, and prosperity in this life is my goal.
The very Faith you rely on so thoroughly to support the positions We attempt to argue with you, should not only pertain to the reason why you believe, it should dictate how you live.
Your God should protect you. This is what you preach! Have faith in it and live by it. Hold that Faith that you will not be ill-effected in our system. I don’t mean to sound at all insensitive, but heck, even if Our proposed system does affect you adversely, it’s only temporal. If you swear by a religion that promises not only eternal happiness, but earthly struggle beforehand, why are you so scared at and averse to the prospect of the fulfillment of that promise? Christianity, in its Gospels, champions the underdog so thoroughly, but most Christians fail to embody this. Rather than submit to their Heavenly Authority, they’d rather BE the authority.
I am not at all proposing a system that will discriminate against those of Faith – ANY faith - or disproportionately benefit the faithless. Nor will I allow such a system, and if one arose, I would martyr myself to the cause of liberty and equality alongside those martyring themselves to a god in which I don’t believe. In all actuality, I’m suggesting a system that a revolutionary group of men put forth in the late eighteenth century.
This is not (expressly) a political forum, and pardon my venture into this realm.
If two men (or women) desire to get married, or to merely be attracted to one another and act on that affinity, it does not reflect on you personally. If these two individuals carry through with their desires, you are not personally hurt. If we prevent them from doing so, it is not going to set in motion the eventual extinction of homosexuality. If we outlaw abortion, abortion won’t stop, nor will miscarriages or even death itself. You may view it as murder and be terrified, but as long as it isn’t mandated, it is a murder that can be guaranteed to never be perpetrated against you or those you love. If we outlaw stem cell research, the abundance of human embryos that already exist due to fertilization efforts will not simply cease to be.
I am not homosexual. It is physically impossible for me to get an abortion. I am not personally presently afflicted with a terminal disease (other than life itself).
But I desire that we not legislate or dictate activity between our fellow grown, mutually consenting, competent humans, which does not directly assault us physically or prohibit our prosperity personally – unless for the greater good of humanity.
(Remember – your God looked out for Noah and Lot.)
In the arena of debate, we can argue all we want, regardless of who does and doesn’t decide to follow the rules. But in the arena of public life we need to practice what we preach.
Just have faith.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
A Veneer of Defense...
I posted a link to my "investigation" on the Issue of the Antitheses. Paul Manata responded:
My impression of this statement (aside from being arrant prattle), is that he is attempting to invalidate my major premise - that he falsely states evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, as opposed to a scientific theory - in effect nullifying my entire argument and conclusion. Ah, but this ejaculation is quite premature.
In his (self-proclaimed) "refutation" of Aaron's critique of his original post, Paul quotes himself (repeatedly) to the effect of "evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, not a scientific theory." This is quite simple and I fail to see how it can be anything other than exactly what it is.
As a matter of fact, the first declaration made in the main body of his original post reads:
It seems to me that he presents the foundation of his entire thought in that initial proclamation.
I then provide definitions of philosophy, religion, and theory (including as it relates to science), and, through the intrinsic meaning of the very words he chose to use, demonstrate that his assumption is incorrect. Never mind that his futile attempt at proof - essentially that the existence of evolution-like ideas predating the modern concept of evolutionary biology negates its status as a theory, confining it to philosophy/religion - borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel.
But it would appear Paul has thrown a verbal wrench in the works, as he "claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy...". Oh, but wait. Hold on one second before you disgorge that wrench.
Let's look at the definition for veneer:
In the thesaurus we find reference to only that connotation:
So, Paul would have us believe I present a completely unfounded challenge based on a weak, possible ambivalence of connotation, all while being in complete denial of his own words.
This is all inconsequential actually, because to refute the premise that Paul clearly alleges evolutionism's non-existence as a scientific theory, he would have to proclaim evolutionism IS a scientific theory. Looking at both his original post and diatribes against Aaron Kinney, it is conspicuously obvious that this is most assuredly NOT the case.
It would appear the only "heads up" is the one in his ass, or to be less offensive, the head is down, in the sand. May I suggest that Paul be more meticulous about slinging the label "sloppy" around.
But what more should be expected from a man who spews flapdoodle, relies heavily on appeal to ridicule, and veneers his "refutations" with ad hominem attacks, ad nauseam ? I, for one, was neither surprised, nor disappointed.
"Thanks for the heads up, dub. I won't compalin [sic] about getting back.
In case you want to edit you may read my original piece where I claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy of process and becomming [sic]. This directly contradicts one of your criticisms, but if you want to be sloppy like Aaron then be my guest."
My impression of this statement (aside from being arrant prattle), is that he is attempting to invalidate my major premise - that he falsely states evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, as opposed to a scientific theory - in effect nullifying my entire argument and conclusion. Ah, but this ejaculation is quite premature.
In his (self-proclaimed) "refutation" of Aaron's critique of his original post, Paul quotes himself (repeatedly) to the effect of "evolutionism is a philosophy/religion, not a scientific theory." This is quite simple and I fail to see how it can be anything other than exactly what it is.
As a matter of fact, the first declaration made in the main body of his original post reads:
"First and foremost, it must be remembered that evolution is not a scientific theory."
It seems to me that he presents the foundation of his entire thought in that initial proclamation.
I then provide definitions of philosophy, religion, and theory (including as it relates to science), and, through the intrinsic meaning of the very words he chose to use, demonstrate that his assumption is incorrect. Never mind that his futile attempt at proof - essentially that the existence of evolution-like ideas predating the modern concept of evolutionary biology negates its status as a theory, confining it to philosophy/religion - borders on asinine inanity, if not fatuous drivel.
But it would appear Paul has thrown a verbal wrench in the works, as he "claimed that Darwin put a scientific veneer over the philosophy...". Oh, but wait. Hold on one second before you disgorge that wrench.
Let's look at the definition for veneer:
- A thin surface layer, as of finely grained wood, glued to a base of inferior material.
- Any of the thin layers glued together to make plywood.
- A decorative facing, as of brick.
- A deceptive, superficial show; a façade
In the thesaurus we find reference to only that connotation:
"A deceptive outward appearance"
So, Paul would have us believe I present a completely unfounded challenge based on a weak, possible ambivalence of connotation, all while being in complete denial of his own words.
This is all inconsequential actually, because to refute the premise that Paul clearly alleges evolutionism's non-existence as a scientific theory, he would have to proclaim evolutionism IS a scientific theory. Looking at both his original post and diatribes against Aaron Kinney, it is conspicuously obvious that this is most assuredly NOT the case.
It would appear the only "heads up" is the one in his ass, or to be less offensive, the head is down, in the sand. May I suggest that Paul be more meticulous about slinging the label "sloppy" around.
But what more should be expected from a man who spews flapdoodle, relies heavily on appeal to ridicule, and veneers his "refutations" with ad hominem attacks, ad nauseam ? I, for one, was neither surprised, nor disappointed.
Pressing the Antithesis' Goose (Part 2)...
(Continued from part one)
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
Paul Manata must not (can’t possibly) comprehend the difference between religion and philosophy, as he proclaims evolution to be both simultaneously, at different times:
Then:
Now he has introduced two separate and different postulations, to which the burden of proof is on him, the presenter. He goes on to attack Aaron, crack jokes, and relish in his own deluded sense of superiority, but does he present any evidence verifying his position?
Well, he provides a string of quotes dated near thirty years ago (’74, ’67, ’67, ’63, ’76). I feel I must inform Paul that many scientific advances have been made since the mid ‘70s, providing us with a much more precise grasp on the subject matter at hand, and more firmly asserting, not refuting, the evolutionary theory.
I insist it is paramount to note that there is indeed a philosophy of evolution. But Paul is, most assuredly, referring to evolution in terms of biology, which is undisputedly a science. I will expound on this shortly.
The terms “evolve”, “evolution”, and “evolutionism” have been in use since before what we currently refer to as the Theory of Evolution came into existence, and have held more than one connotation.
We should note that what we currently accept as the Theory of Evolution is not a carbon copy of what Darwin was proposing in Origin of Species. This reflects the intrinsic nature of a theory.
Paul is both alleging that modern evolutionists purport that the very idea of evolution was unheard of before Darwin, and perpetuating the misconception that evolutionary biology remains exactly as it was when presented by Darwin. Both are drastically unfounded and completely out of line.
He continues to present brilliant deductions like:
His argument is based solely on parallels. It is nothing more than a similarity. He presents basic ideas of thought held in days of yore that resemble the premise of a modern scientific theory. Paul surely isn’t – can’t possibly be - suggesting that these Greek philosophers expressed an identical theory. Most notably, the mechanics are quite different. If this isn’t what he’s suggesting, then well, what the hell is his point?
His argument that evolution is not scientific theory, based simply on observations that comparable ideas have existed over time, though with varying application, is not only blatantly fallacious and invalid, it is analogous to me saying that Islam is Christianity because they both mention Abraham, Israel, Moses, Jesus, etc..
The existence of ideas in antiquity that bear a resemblance to the popular conception of the basis of the present Theory of Evolution does not at all imply that the theory we refer to in modern biological evolution derives directly from them, much less that they are one in the same.
Virgin-born sacrificial redeemer figures are commonplace in the lore of ancient people. Does this mean those legends were Jesus? There are examples of ideology remarkably similar to Christian theology in more ancient belief systems, but that does not at all imply that those religions were, in fact, Christianity. I’ll take this a step further and propose that the faith system that evolved into modern Christianity (no pun intended) was not practiced by its original adherents in the same form as it is by the masses today. The accepted scripture, particular dogma (i.e. the trinity), and even essential beliefs (i.e. Jesus’ incarnation as a man) have not remained constant (thus schisms). Surely, Paul’s massive library, with its volumes on philosophy, evolution, and apologetics also includes works of theology. His fervor for attaining knowledge of the history of evolution (something I’ll assume he doesn’t subscribe to) must also manifest applied to the history of his religion (something I’ll assume carries critical consequence to him).
He quotes Michael Ruse as saying "Darwinian evolutionary biology continues to function as a kind of secular religion” [emphasis mine].
Through his choice of language (emphasized), we can deduce here that Ruse is quite clearly equating evolution(ary biology) to, but not defining it as religion. There is a difference.
Likewise, the quotes of Richard C. Vitzthum, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and UC Berkley prove absolutely nothing in his favor, as they just rehash his coincidence of similarity argument, and provide no pronouncement whatsoever that evolutionism is in fact not a scientific theory.
For instance, he states that “Sagan provided back-up, proving that these ideas of process and becoming have been around for thousands of years” and asserts that this supposed backup and proof relates to Paul’s assumption that “evolutionism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory.” How's that? If this is true, I certainly wouldn’t want Carl to have my back.
Again, what exactly is Paul’s point? Oh, it must be that Aaron is an immature, effeminate, neurotic, imbecile, because he takes plenty of cheap shots, such as implying Aaron wears panties, takes meds (presumably psychotropic or antipsychotic), and mindlessly plays Gameboy “rather than” engaging in true scholarly pursuits (it's Paul that certainly knows quite a bit about Zelda). His personal attacks on Kinney are truly not suprising at all. In the spirit of fairness, I must acknowledge that Aaron and his evil "ilk" [read: coven of atheist minions] are also guilty of ridiculing Paul, and not just his position (one of a “rear naked choke hold” – dammit, now I’ve been reduced to such juvenile tactics).
There is, though, a difference between insults and outright lies. Paul makes the following accusation:
Utilizing an admittedly quick and simple search, I only found one instance that would fit what he’s described.
In this post and the subsequent comments, Aaron never claims to have “refuted” Goodman – he challenges Goodman with an “assertion that the PoI relies on a violation of causality.” Aaron also doesn’t “admit” to never reading the article (an anonymous commenter – hmm, wonder who? – asks "who has read Goodmans paper?”, to which Kinney replies, “I dont know. Maybe anonymous did?”
Misquotes are an underhanded tactic and sure sign of foul play. They’re also closely related to a device that is extremely pertinent to this specific discourse.
Aaron does accuse Paul of quote mining (a concept Paul is obviously ignorant of), and as the accuser, the burden of proof rests on Aaron. Of course, to do this, Aaron would have to read each work Paul quoted from, which would certainly take more time than Paul allowed before declaring Aaron defeated.
But what's this? It appears that the time required is not near as lengthy as one may have initially supposed, as I have uncovered evidence supporting the claim of quote mining.
Paul’s quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a fine example. Interesting that he chose the very first paragraph of the article, because, if one reads further, it is declared that:
This is pivotal. Remember here, the inclusion of fact is what separates philosophy from science. It’s all mere speculation until evidence arrives to test it against. There is a procedure to this testing, and it is called the scientific method.
Interestingly, the very same article proclaims:
Evolution is then demonstrated as included in the beliefs of the likes of: early Christian church father (and saint) Augustine, theologian Erigena, prelate Nicholas of Cusa, and Giordano Bruno, who, although burned at the stake for heresy by the Inquisition, was still a theist. (For those who aren’t aware, “St. Augustine's influence on Christianity is thought by many to be second only to that of St. Paul”, and he is a crucial figure in the institution of ideas such as the Trinity, original sin and the fall of humanity as dogma for the Christian church.)
Now, I can't imagine why he left that part out.
In fact, soon after the segment Paul quoted, the article places this ancient evolutionary philosophy in the teleology vs. mechanism debate, which also shows that creationism and ID have earlier precursors than their modern manifestations. Does this somehow refute a theist’s view of creation as put forth in the Bible? Of course not.
Paul continues to load his “arguments” full of personal attacks, attempting to appeal to his base, as he really has nothing else to stand on.
He quotes Aaron as saying,“some kind of popularity or authority argument” and then offers the huffy reply that “Numbers may determine popularity but not authority arguments. So, get your ‘games’ right.” Did Paul not notice the inclusion of “or”, a comparative conjunction which is, by definition, “used to indicate an alternative”?
Paul also typically attempts to belittle his opponent’s intellect by pointing out typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
(He forgot the [sic] after “its”.)
As a Christian, I would really have expected Paul to be more familiar with Matthew 7:1-5. Paul has many planks in his eye:
Paul also resorts to semantics (imagine that), and berates Aaron for wishy-washiness with the absolutism of the word “all”. I find this particularly humorous, as he’s already demonstrated his mastery over the precise meaning of language. I’m sure Paul has been guilty of absolutism with words. He’s definitely good at being bad with usage.
For instance, “myriad amounts of quotes” is both redundant and hyperbole.
Speaking of redundancy, there is no further need to continue. The basic point here is that Paul made a statement (evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy) which Aaron challenged, and Paul presented no evidence to support his claims. A philosophy predating a theory based on empirical, objective evidence used to investigate the thoughts brought to light by that philosophy, does not invalidate the theory, much less its nature of being a theory.
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
Paul Manata must not (can’t possibly) comprehend the difference between religion and philosophy, as he proclaims evolution to be both simultaneously, at different times:
“My point was that evolutionism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory”
Then:
“Evolutionism is a religion”
Now he has introduced two separate and different postulations, to which the burden of proof is on him, the presenter. He goes on to attack Aaron, crack jokes, and relish in his own deluded sense of superiority, but does he present any evidence verifying his position?
Well, he provides a string of quotes dated near thirty years ago (’74, ’67, ’67, ’63, ’76). I feel I must inform Paul that many scientific advances have been made since the mid ‘70s, providing us with a much more precise grasp on the subject matter at hand, and more firmly asserting, not refuting, the evolutionary theory.
I insist it is paramount to note that there is indeed a philosophy of evolution. But Paul is, most assuredly, referring to evolution in terms of biology, which is undisputedly a science. I will expound on this shortly.
The terms “evolve”, “evolution”, and “evolutionism” have been in use since before what we currently refer to as the Theory of Evolution came into existence, and have held more than one connotation.
We should note that what we currently accept as the Theory of Evolution is not a carbon copy of what Darwin was proposing in Origin of Species. This reflects the intrinsic nature of a theory.
Paul is both alleging that modern evolutionists purport that the very idea of evolution was unheard of before Darwin, and perpetuating the misconception that evolutionary biology remains exactly as it was when presented by Darwin. Both are drastically unfounded and completely out of line.
He continues to present brilliant deductions like:
“Doesn't the idea that all the flora, fauna, fish and fowl came from one (or just a few) basic stuff sound familiar? Of course it does, it's evolutionism.”
“Note: does the view that says, "From one basic type of thing many types of things came" sound familiar? Sound like evolutionism?”
“The view that from one basic "stuff" came the diversity of "stuff" (common ancestry to the diversity called life) is evolutionism. Evolutionism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.”
His argument is based solely on parallels. It is nothing more than a similarity. He presents basic ideas of thought held in days of yore that resemble the premise of a modern scientific theory. Paul surely isn’t – can’t possibly be - suggesting that these Greek philosophers expressed an identical theory. Most notably, the mechanics are quite different. If this isn’t what he’s suggesting, then well, what the hell is his point?
His argument that evolution is not scientific theory, based simply on observations that comparable ideas have existed over time, though with varying application, is not only blatantly fallacious and invalid, it is analogous to me saying that Islam is Christianity because they both mention Abraham, Israel, Moses, Jesus, etc..
The existence of ideas in antiquity that bear a resemblance to the popular conception of the basis of the present Theory of Evolution does not at all imply that the theory we refer to in modern biological evolution derives directly from them, much less that they are one in the same.
Virgin-born sacrificial redeemer figures are commonplace in the lore of ancient people. Does this mean those legends were Jesus? There are examples of ideology remarkably similar to Christian theology in more ancient belief systems, but that does not at all imply that those religions were, in fact, Christianity. I’ll take this a step further and propose that the faith system that evolved into modern Christianity (no pun intended) was not practiced by its original adherents in the same form as it is by the masses today. The accepted scripture, particular dogma (i.e. the trinity), and even essential beliefs (i.e. Jesus’ incarnation as a man) have not remained constant (thus schisms). Surely, Paul’s massive library, with its volumes on philosophy, evolution, and apologetics also includes works of theology. His fervor for attaining knowledge of the history of evolution (something I’ll assume he doesn’t subscribe to) must also manifest applied to the history of his religion (something I’ll assume carries critical consequence to him).
He quotes Michael Ruse as saying "Darwinian evolutionary biology continues to function as a kind of secular religion” [emphasis mine].
Through his choice of language (emphasized), we can deduce here that Ruse is quite clearly equating evolution(ary biology) to, but not defining it as religion. There is a difference.
Likewise, the quotes of Richard C. Vitzthum, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, and UC Berkley prove absolutely nothing in his favor, as they just rehash his coincidence of similarity argument, and provide no pronouncement whatsoever that evolutionism is in fact not a scientific theory.
For instance, he states that “Sagan provided back-up, proving that these ideas of process and becoming have been around for thousands of years” and asserts that this supposed backup and proof relates to Paul’s assumption that “evolutionism is a philosophy, not a scientific theory.” How's that? If this is true, I certainly wouldn’t want Carl to have my back.
Again, what exactly is Paul’s point? Oh, it must be that Aaron is an immature, effeminate, neurotic, imbecile, because he takes plenty of cheap shots, such as implying Aaron wears panties, takes meds (presumably psychotropic or antipsychotic), and mindlessly plays Gameboy “rather than” engaging in true scholarly pursuits (it's Paul that certainly knows quite a bit about Zelda). His personal attacks on Kinney are truly not suprising at all. In the spirit of fairness, I must acknowledge that Aaron and his evil "ilk" [read: coven of atheist minions] are also guilty of ridiculing Paul, and not just his position (one of a “rear naked choke hold” – dammit, now I’ve been reduced to such juvenile tactics).
There is, though, a difference between insults and outright lies. Paul makes the following accusation:
“Kinney once ‘refuted’ Nelson Goodman's article ‘The New Riddle of Induction’ admitting that he never actually read the article!”
Utilizing an admittedly quick and simple search, I only found one instance that would fit what he’s described.
In this post and the subsequent comments, Aaron never claims to have “refuted” Goodman – he challenges Goodman with an “assertion that the PoI relies on a violation of causality.” Aaron also doesn’t “admit” to never reading the article (an anonymous commenter – hmm, wonder who? – asks "who has read Goodmans paper?”, to which Kinney replies, “I dont know. Maybe anonymous did?”
Misquotes are an underhanded tactic and sure sign of foul play. They’re also closely related to a device that is extremely pertinent to this specific discourse.
Aaron does accuse Paul of quote mining (a concept Paul is obviously ignorant of), and as the accuser, the burden of proof rests on Aaron. Of course, to do this, Aaron would have to read each work Paul quoted from, which would certainly take more time than Paul allowed before declaring Aaron defeated.
But what's this? It appears that the time required is not near as lengthy as one may have initially supposed, as I have uncovered evidence supporting the claim of quote mining.
Paul’s quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a fine example. Interesting that he chose the very first paragraph of the article, because, if one reads further, it is declared that:
"Darwin's epoch-making doctrine rested upon a vast mass of ascertained facts” [emphasis mine]
This is pivotal. Remember here, the inclusion of fact is what separates philosophy from science. It’s all mere speculation until evidence arrives to test it against. There is a procedure to this testing, and it is called the scientific method.
Interestingly, the very same article proclaims:
"The idea of evolution was not particularly dominant in patristic and scholastic theology and philosophy…on account of the generally accepted Christian theory of creation. However, evolution is not generally denied” [emphasis mine]
Evolution is then demonstrated as included in the beliefs of the likes of: early Christian church father (and saint) Augustine, theologian Erigena, prelate Nicholas of Cusa, and Giordano Bruno, who, although burned at the stake for heresy by the Inquisition, was still a theist. (For those who aren’t aware, “St. Augustine's influence on Christianity is thought by many to be second only to that of St. Paul”, and he is a crucial figure in the institution of ideas such as the Trinity, original sin and the fall of humanity as dogma for the Christian church.)
Now, I can't imagine why he left that part out.
In fact, soon after the segment Paul quoted, the article places this ancient evolutionary philosophy in the teleology vs. mechanism debate, which also shows that creationism and ID have earlier precursors than their modern manifestations. Does this somehow refute a theist’s view of creation as put forth in the Bible? Of course not.
Paul continues to load his “arguments” full of personal attacks, attempting to appeal to his base, as he really has nothing else to stand on.
He quotes Aaron as saying,“some kind of popularity or authority argument” and then offers the huffy reply that “Numbers may determine popularity but not authority arguments. So, get your ‘games’ right.” Did Paul not notice the inclusion of “or”, a comparative conjunction which is, by definition, “used to indicate an alternative”?
Paul also typically attempts to belittle his opponent’s intellect by pointing out typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
"Kinney: Wow, manata [sic] really has been pushing his 'dont[sic] play with adults' article all over the place. I must say, its an excellent study in quote mining."
(He forgot the [sic] after “its”.)
As a Christian, I would really have expected Paul to be more familiar with Matthew 7:1-5. Paul has many planks in his eye:
“Kiney [sic] is not a human.”
“leaving Kinney all ugly and disfugured [sic]”
“Kinney his inserted foot in mouth” (dyslexics of the world UNTIE!).
“What he doesn't know is that the sword he waves is paeper [sic]”
Paul also resorts to semantics (imagine that), and berates Aaron for wishy-washiness with the absolutism of the word “all”. I find this particularly humorous, as he’s already demonstrated his mastery over the precise meaning of language. I’m sure Paul has been guilty of absolutism with words. He’s definitely good at being bad with usage.
For instance, “myriad amounts of quotes” is both redundant and hyperbole.
Speaking of redundancy, there is no further need to continue. The basic point here is that Paul made a statement (evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy) which Aaron challenged, and Paul presented no evidence to support his claims. A philosophy predating a theory based on empirical, objective evidence used to investigate the thoughts brought to light by that philosophy, does not invalidate the theory, much less its nature of being a theory.
Pressing the Antithesis' Goose (Part 1)...
(Once again, for simplicity of reading and commenting, I’m separating one post into multiple parts)
A dispute has been brewing between Paul Manata and Aaron Kinney. Paul has written three posts and Aaron has written two (plus two on Paul’s censorship by not allowing comments). I would mind my business, but that’s just not me, nor is it a valid option. I would mind protocol and deposit my 2¢ in its proper place, but Paul doesn’t allow commenting.
Basically, Paul suggests that evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy (more on this ambiguity later).
First, some clarification (if pressed for time, one may wish to skip ahead to the direct critique of Paul’s effort).
I feel this is, in essence, a question of semantics. We are dealing with dynamic, fluid concepts: Language changes. Theories change.
Therefore, we must define religion, philosophy, and (scientific) theory. In terms of religion and theory, I believe the atheist side requires and administers a more literal (prescriptive) definition as opposed to a looser lexical (descriptive) definition; the theists are proposing a persuasive definition. Clearly, we must ascertain a precising definition for the discussion to continue any further.
Definitions of religion consistently contain reference to the supernatural. Notably, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition describes religion as:
I believe this is more along the lines of what most theists are thinking when they claim that science/evolution is a religion to atheists. In its simplest form, this correlation to a religion may be an expressive use of language and not intended as informative use, even if it is declarative in nature; unfortunately, such flimsy adherence to meaning not accurate.
Philosophy is, perhaps appropriately, a little harder to pin down:
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition affirms that philosophy is distinguished from both religion and science:
Wikipedia tells us:
The essential difference between philosophy and science lies in fact. There is also an issue of the broadness of the questions asked, but once facts come into play, science takes over.
So, what is fact?
Fact: “Knowledge or information based on real occurrences”; “Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed”; “Something believed to be true or real”; “Something that has actual existence; A matter of objective reality” [emphasis mine]
I will also note that a distinguishment has been made between true facts and real facts, but this seriously muddles the situation.
So, what is truth?
Truth: “Conformity to fact or actuality”
Also, truth is an evaluation, not a state of being.
These are often debated terms and concepts, so while we’re at it, let’s look at the notion of proof…
Prove: “To test the truth, validity, or genuineness of “; “To establish as true or genuine” [emphasis mine]
Proof: “The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true”; “The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules” [emphasis mine]
Most say that absolute proof is impossible, outside of mathematics.
A noticeable trend is the room for future development. Those of us who prescribe to positivism, “support realism, materialism, philosophical naturalism, and empiricism, and favor the scientific method”, don’t really feel the need for absolutes. We’re open-minded that way. The comedy in this of course, is that theists insist we provide absolutes, and base their own belief on the complete absence of such (e.g. faith) – this is a topic for another time. I personally find it rather ironic that we, the more structured of the two, are more flexible.
A demonstration of our relative resilience is shown is our acceptance of theory for what it actually is:
Wikipedia tells us:
It then goes on to state:
Once it has distinguished a theory from an hypothesis, it offers forth this interesting nugget:
Rather than setting up straw men, attacking misconceptions, and attempting to “prove” false notions of “facts”, “proof”, and “theory”, perhaps theists should tend to the much more pertinent task of proving that their beliefs are anything more than mere conjecture.
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
(continue to part two)
A dispute has been brewing between Paul Manata and Aaron Kinney. Paul has written three posts and Aaron has written two (plus two on Paul’s censorship by not allowing comments). I would mind my business, but that’s just not me, nor is it a valid option. I would mind protocol and deposit my 2¢ in its proper place, but Paul doesn’t allow commenting.
Basically, Paul suggests that evolutionism is not a scientific theory, but a religion/philosophy (more on this ambiguity later).
First, some clarification (if pressed for time, one may wish to skip ahead to the direct critique of Paul’s effort).
I feel this is, in essence, a question of semantics. We are dealing with dynamic, fluid concepts: Language changes. Theories change.
Therefore, we must define religion, philosophy, and (scientific) theory. In terms of religion and theory, I believe the atheist side requires and administers a more literal (prescriptive) definition as opposed to a looser lexical (descriptive) definition; the theists are proposing a persuasive definition. Clearly, we must ascertain a precising definition for the discussion to continue any further.
Definitions of religion consistently contain reference to the supernatural. Notably, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition describes religion as:
“a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe.”
I believe this is more along the lines of what most theists are thinking when they claim that science/evolution is a religion to atheists. In its simplest form, this correlation to a religion may be an expressive use of language and not intended as informative use, even if it is declarative in nature; unfortunately, such flimsy adherence to meaning not accurate.
Philosophy is, perhaps appropriately, a little harder to pin down:
“The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs” [emphasis mine]; “study of the ultimate reality, causes, and principles underlying being and thinking”
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition affirms that philosophy is distinguished from both religion and science:
"This search for truth began, in the Western world, when the Greeks first established (c.600 B.C.) inquiry independent of theological creeds. Philosophy is distinguished from theology in that philosophy rejects dogma and deals with speculation rather than faith. Philosophy differs from science in that both the natural and the social sciences base their theories wholly on established fact, whereas philosophy also covers areas of inquiry where no facts as such are available. Originally, science as such did not exist and philosophy covered the entire field, but as facts became available and tentative certainties emerged, the sciences broke away from metaphysical speculation to pursue their different aims." [emphasis mine]
Wikipedia tells us:
"Historically most philosophy has either centered on religious beliefs, or science. Philosophers may ask critical questions about the nature of these concepts--questions typically outside the scope of science." [emphasis mine]
The essential difference between philosophy and science lies in fact. There is also an issue of the broadness of the questions asked, but once facts come into play, science takes over.
So, what is fact?
Fact: “Knowledge or information based on real occurrences”; “Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed”; “Something believed to be true or real”; “Something that has actual existence; A matter of objective reality” [emphasis mine]
I will also note that a distinguishment has been made between true facts and real facts, but this seriously muddles the situation.
So, what is truth?
Truth: “Conformity to fact or actuality”
Also, truth is an evaluation, not a state of being.
These are often debated terms and concepts, so while we’re at it, let’s look at the notion of proof…
Prove: “To test the truth, validity, or genuineness of “; “To establish as true or genuine” [emphasis mine]
Proof: “The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true”; “The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules” [emphasis mine]
Most say that absolute proof is impossible, outside of mathematics.
A noticeable trend is the room for future development. Those of us who prescribe to positivism, “support realism, materialism, philosophical naturalism, and empiricism, and favor the scientific method”, don’t really feel the need for absolutes. We’re open-minded that way. The comedy in this of course, is that theists insist we provide absolutes, and base their own belief on the complete absence of such (e.g. faith) – this is a topic for another time. I personally find it rather ironic that we, the more structured of the two, are more flexible.
A demonstration of our relative resilience is shown is our acceptance of theory for what it actually is:
“a well-substantiated explanation”; “organized system of accepted knowledge”; “a tentative theory… that is not yet verified”
Wikipedia tells us:
"In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method." [emphasis mine]
It then goes on to state:
"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data." [emphasis mine]
Once it has distinguished a theory from an hypothesis, it offers forth this interesting nugget:
"A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data and often simply a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism."
Rather than setting up straw men, attacking misconceptions, and attempting to “prove” false notions of “facts”, “proof”, and “theory”, perhaps theists should tend to the much more pertinent task of proving that their beliefs are anything more than mere conjecture.
Now, onto addressing Paul more directly…
(continue to part two)
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Shooting Myself In the Foot...
I pen an entry that, although I won't say is an absolute must read, is deserving of consideration, and it goes unnoticed. Well, at the least, unremarked. I really, truly thought this particular piece would be my most read to date, and would inspire serious commenting.
I then, in the mood to focus on something much more lighthearted and inconsequential, post a movie critic-styled entry that drips of self-indulgence, focusing on a couple of compliments I received recently. This gets comments.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
It doesn't require a perusal of my entire blog to see that I have an affinity for discussing two topics in particular: race and religion. Those near and dear to me are all too aware of this (and I fear a bit annoyed). I pretty much only discuss items considered controversial by the lethargically apathetic masses. Why waste time opining the already well established? Well, I fucked around and wrote one post focusing on the two combined, and it may have bit me in the ass.
I am fully aware that the heavy emphasis on both endangers readership. Why? Well, we know I wouldn't bite my tongue in a seizure, so I'll call it like I see it.
I suppose it safe to assume the individuals who will gravitate toward one subject matter over the other most likely have a vested interest in the particular issue they choose. This seems rather obvious. I'll wager that those choosing race are either a representative of a minority, an individual who comes in frequent contact with such or, conversely, a racist of sorts. Likewise, those partaking of the religious commentary are most likely either atheist, the "undecided" in search of answers, or theists actively looking for debate.
Basically, I’m suggesting black folk are peeping my race posts and atheists are here for the god-bashing.
At the risk of perpetuating a form of stereotyping (imagine that) I have to note that, from my own observations, African Americans are less likely to be agnostic or atheist, and therefore don't share my views on religion (I would love to see actual data on this). On the other hand, I suspect most of the faithless visitors are white, and, although overwhelmingly liberal-minded freethinkers, have natural aversions (future topic) to my posts on racism.
Boy that was a lot of stereotyping.
The bottom line? I fear the people who would frequent more often to read my essays on discrimination may be turned off by my overtly anti-Christian themed posts, and vice versa.
What's noteworthy is that both groups are in the minority nationally, discriminated against by the same common enemy, and outspoken (bravely so) about issues of major importance, yet choose their comfort zones according to what most affects them on an individual basis. Maybe this is closed-minded. Maybe it just makes sense and is efficient. Maybe I just want someone to read my dammit post and tell me what they think.
I’ll note here that the issues of race and secularism are two of the most important we face, and the two most debated during the founding years of this country. See how far we’ve come in 230 odd years?
I then, in the mood to focus on something much more lighthearted and inconsequential, post a movie critic-styled entry that drips of self-indulgence, focusing on a couple of compliments I received recently. This gets comments.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
It doesn't require a perusal of my entire blog to see that I have an affinity for discussing two topics in particular: race and religion. Those near and dear to me are all too aware of this (and I fear a bit annoyed). I pretty much only discuss items considered controversial by the lethargically apathetic masses. Why waste time opining the already well established? Well, I fucked around and wrote one post focusing on the two combined, and it may have bit me in the ass.
I am fully aware that the heavy emphasis on both endangers readership. Why? Well, we know I wouldn't bite my tongue in a seizure, so I'll call it like I see it.
I suppose it safe to assume the individuals who will gravitate toward one subject matter over the other most likely have a vested interest in the particular issue they choose. This seems rather obvious. I'll wager that those choosing race are either a representative of a minority, an individual who comes in frequent contact with such or, conversely, a racist of sorts. Likewise, those partaking of the religious commentary are most likely either atheist, the "undecided" in search of answers, or theists actively looking for debate.
Basically, I’m suggesting black folk are peeping my race posts and atheists are here for the god-bashing.
At the risk of perpetuating a form of stereotyping (imagine that) I have to note that, from my own observations, African Americans are less likely to be agnostic or atheist, and therefore don't share my views on religion (I would love to see actual data on this). On the other hand, I suspect most of the faithless visitors are white, and, although overwhelmingly liberal-minded freethinkers, have natural aversions (future topic) to my posts on racism.
Boy that was a lot of stereotyping.
The bottom line? I fear the people who would frequent more often to read my essays on discrimination may be turned off by my overtly anti-Christian themed posts, and vice versa.
What's noteworthy is that both groups are in the minority nationally, discriminated against by the same common enemy, and outspoken (bravely so) about issues of major importance, yet choose their comfort zones according to what most affects them on an individual basis. Maybe this is closed-minded. Maybe it just makes sense and is efficient. Maybe I just want someone to read my dammit post and tell me what they think.
I’ll note here that the issues of race and secularism are two of the most important we face, and the two most debated during the founding years of this country. See how far we’ve come in 230 odd years?
Friday, September 02, 2005
Breaks Over, Get to Work...
Another brilliant post from EA. He quotes Louisiana Governor Blanco:
"I have declared August 31, 2005, a Day of Prayer in the State of Louisiana.EA then injects some insulin of sanity in the face of this diabetic coma of inanity:
[...]
"I know, by praying together on Wednesday, that we can pull together and draw strength we need; strength, that only God can give us."
Well, I have this to say:Shut the fuck up. Where is your god, Governor? Where is your benevolent, omnipotent being? Is he busy being thanked by the starving survivors who sit on their rooftops as the odor of their rotting neighbors wafts over them? Is he busy being thanked by the critical-care patients who avoided the bullets of the snipers that tried to kill them as they were being evacuated today? Is he busy being thanked by the evacuees who have returned to southern Mississippi to pick through the piles of matchsticks and memories that cover the ground their homes used to occupy? He must be busy, because he’s nowhere to be found. It’s not god providing the cots and MREs for 45,000 refugees, it’s the city of Houston. It’s not god picking people off rooftops, it’s the Coast Guard. It’s not god stopping the floodwaters from Lake Pontchartrain, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers
Wisdom and should-be common sense then continue to surge forth. I wholeheartedly suggest - plead that - people read what he has to say.
Now for my thoughts.
Ouch.
Everybody pray for me. I fear that I am slipping out of consciousness from repetitively bludgeoning the desk with my head after reading this post.
This line of thought, combined with the continued reports of malevolent, inhumane actions from people in the face of mounting hopelessness, is not conducive to repelling a perpetual mental siege by an overwhelming sense of misanthropy. My already slippery grip on the idea (pipe dream?) of the mere humanity of humans is weakening.
When cornered, or merely given an opportunity, we lunge for each other’s throats, blinded by self preservation and/or greed. Can’t we see one another in the mirror and in that recognition gain some semblance of compassion?
But, then again, why bother?
If we refuse to believe in our own strength, and shell out credit to invisible forces outside of and separate from us when given concrete examples of both the existence of our own, and complete absence of any supernatural benevolence, then where is a need for responsibility?
Why bother helping another human if it’s ultimately not of your own accord, will, and ability? In the face of their own cowardice, ineptitude, and lethargy, people will readily give credit to a god instead of a fellow human who possessed enough intestinal fortitude to overcome those same dilemmas. The viable choice is to continue in self-denial and delusion, choosing an omnipotent god, rather than admit one’s own shortcomings.
As for those who actually do care enough to help, yet still heap recognition in god’s lap? I suppose they do so on two accounts:
- fear of damnation/hope for eternal reward
- they’d prefer to believe their own strength and conviction was bestowed upon them from the unknown rather than acknowledge the complacent negligence of fellow humans
The prevailing thought seems to be that all the ills of humanity string from within, and any graces of humanity are granted to us. Furthermore, tragedies that fall upon us spring forth from those very self conceived ills, and any fortune is a merely a blessing, usually gained from shunning those who ill.
It shouldn’t be so damned difficult (and rarely tangibly rewarding) to just simply do right for right’s sake.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Apparently He Spilled the Bucket...
"Wednesday began with TV and radio coverage of live prayers by the governor and a collection of holy men."
Maybe they should've been praying BEFORE the storm hit. Oh, yeah – they were. You’d think they’d have learned something from that.
He’d seen hell where a kind of heaven should be.
He’d heard references to Sodom and Gomorrah.
“Maybe God’s going to cleanse us.”
Damn, I guess God DOES work in mysterious ways. If this is a cleansing, I’d hate to see how he gets his hands dirty.
Oh, boy - here come the Sodom & Gomorrah references. I KNEW the homos had something to do with it!!
But they weren’t ALL sodomites. As demonstrated every year during Mardi gras, NOLA is a steamy, inebriated hotbed of beaded debauchery. But it’s also the proud land of good ol’ plantation owners.
What could they be being punished for? Hmmm…I already hypothesized the whole shellfish thing…but, what could they have done that is so horrible, so deplorable, to warrant disaster on such an, uh – BIBLICAL - scale?
Ah, I got it! Aren’t Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama RED states?
Yeah…they are, aren’t they.
[Source]
Times Picayune - Wednesday, August 31, 2005
"Radio captures the horror, exhaustion"
By Dave Walker
It Has Been 30 Years Since My Last Confession...
In response to ~I AM~ announcing plans for a theist to guest post on his blog:
In the spirit of lifting material from EA:
"It will definitely be a different experience.
My usual reactions while reading this [an atheist] site are: shouts along the lines of "Word!", "Yes!", "No S#it!"...maybe even "Amen!" or "Preach!"; nodding my head in complete agreement; laughing (at humor); shock at ridiculous, meaningless atrocities committed in the name of belief; excessive smiling; and general feelings of accomplishment, excitement, fulfillment, motivation, and acceptance.
(Hmmm...almost sounds like church...)
My usual reactions while reading religious sites are: shouts along the lines of "WTF?!", "Please!", "Are you kidding?!"...maybe even "Jesus Christ!!"; shaking my head in complete bewilderment; laughing (at gulliblity/ignorance/desparation); shock at excuses/calls made for ridiculous, meaningless atrocities committed in the name of belief; excessive blank-staring; and general feelings of hopelessness, despair, anger, an utter disbelief.
I'll go a step further and admit that the instant, comparative imagery I get of religious individuals is of little kids playing out scenes from their favorite cartoons with toys, simple-minded primitives completely awestruck while timidly reaching out toward fire, a dog staring - head cocked - at a television, and/or retarded children throwing ice at the sun.
This is usually followed immediately by terrifying nightmares of complete disregard for human life or decency, intolerance, xenophobia, groupthink, judgment, arrogance, and oppression.
In moments of introspection I realize that I automatically lose respect for a person when I find s/he's religious (or subscribes to the paranormal in general).
I need to do something about these knee-jerks. Apparently theists aren't the only intolerant, judgmental, arrogant, elitists out there."
In the spirit of lifting material from EA:
Not all of the believers are stupid or ignorant. Conversely, however, nearly all of the stupid or ignorant are believers. - ~I AM~
Sunday, August 28, 2005
My Cross to Bear...
I have a necklace with a fairly large gold crucifix. Full-blown Christ nailed to some wood crucifix.
This confuses some people.
I wear it constantly. While I sleep. In the shower. I actually got it caught in a net while dunking in a game of basketball, and tore my neck up pretty damn badly.
This gives some people ammunition.
See, I'm an agnostic, with heavy leanings toward atheism. I'm not going to say there's NO god (not that arrogant), but I'm pretty damn sure of it. One thing's for certain, I'm definitely not a Christian. I'm in the school of thought that good ol' Yashua ben Yosef never even existed, much less was a rabbi, prophet, or devine.
So why the hell do I have his tortured body dangling from my neck?
I'm not that damn sacrilegious, if that's what you're thinking.
See, I bought it about 8 years ago, before I was absolutely sure about [read: bothered acknowledging] my (lack of) beliefs. It wasn't bought as any sort of representation of faith anyway.
When first faced with the dilemma, I tried to explain it as a "representation of sacrifice," but that was utter bullshit, because I didn't believe the story behind it.
It is rather noticeable, and does get plenty of compliments - which frequently lead to inquiries into my faith, which in turn lead to religious "discussion" (which I'm not exactly looking to avoid). I've used that as justification too. After all, I love a debate.
But there's the whole integrity issue. I'm all about the truth. Honesty. How can I run around criticizing a belief system while wearing its symbol?
Because I'm a conceited bastard, that's why. I've accepted that it's pure superficial vanity. I wear it because it looks good.
Which makes me no different than 90% of the other people who wear one.
EDIT: Since this was originally posted, I have realized and acknowledged that I am indeed an atheist. A strong atheist. I also realize that an Agnostic is not a "third choice" as most people tend to think: there can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, because it addresses an entirely different concept. When it comes to theism, you can only be athiestic or theistic--there is no middle ground.
This confuses some people.
I wear it constantly. While I sleep. In the shower. I actually got it caught in a net while dunking in a game of basketball, and tore my neck up pretty damn badly.
This gives some people ammunition.
See, I'm an agnostic, with heavy leanings toward atheism. I'm not going to say there's NO god (not that arrogant), but I'm pretty damn sure of it. One thing's for certain, I'm definitely not a Christian. I'm in the school of thought that good ol' Yashua ben Yosef never even existed, much less was a rabbi, prophet, or devine.
So why the hell do I have his tortured body dangling from my neck?
I'm not that damn sacrilegious, if that's what you're thinking.
See, I bought it about 8 years ago, before I was absolutely sure about [read: bothered acknowledging] my (lack of) beliefs. It wasn't bought as any sort of representation of faith anyway.
When first faced with the dilemma, I tried to explain it as a "representation of sacrifice," but that was utter bullshit, because I didn't believe the story behind it.
It is rather noticeable, and does get plenty of compliments - which frequently lead to inquiries into my faith, which in turn lead to religious "discussion" (which I'm not exactly looking to avoid). I've used that as justification too. After all, I love a debate.
But there's the whole integrity issue. I'm all about the truth. Honesty. How can I run around criticizing a belief system while wearing its symbol?
Because I'm a conceited bastard, that's why. I've accepted that it's pure superficial vanity. I wear it because it looks good.
Which makes me no different than 90% of the other people who wear one.
EDIT: Since this was originally posted, I have realized and acknowledged that I am indeed an atheist. A strong atheist. I also realize that an Agnostic is not a "third choice" as most people tend to think: there can be agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, because it addresses an entirely different concept. When it comes to theism, you can only be athiestic or theistic--there is no middle ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)