stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Your eccentric distinction between atheists is seriously unhelpful.
I don't suppose "seriously unhelpful" comment would be the same kind of criticism a Muslim might make of a Westerner who illuminated some basic distinctions between Sunnis and Shia? I understand the basic sectarian and 'united front' concepts, actually.
A Westerner with no particular interest in Islam is more likely to see the Sunni/Shia distinction as insignificant; he may be all too willing to tar these "terrorists" with the same brush. Similarly, a believer who sees himself under attack from atheists easily imagines those attacks as from a United Front. But when it comes what distinguishes co-believers the entire homoösis/homoiosis debate breaks out again.
It is one thing to believe that there is no god (atheist), and quite another for that person to treat it as a "devotion" to a cause.
It has been my experience that atheist can be quite irate people - Dawkin's book for example is just an sophomoric screed. I've also been personally attacked by atheists: crude, vaudeville, and eccentric, are some examples.
Dawkin is certainly a proseltyser among atheists, but then not all Christians are preachers. On both sides of the divide most people quietly believe without ever setting foot in a common meeting place such as a church.
Some atheists can be quite irate, but it is not logical to generalize this to all atheists. On-line one needs to exercise some discretion before interpreting the questioning of ideas as some kind of personal attack. Inflamitorily disembodying certain words from their contexts does not provide satisfactory evidence of personal attack. How is "crude hypothesis" a personal attack? How is "eccentric distinction between..." a personal attack? How is the "vaudeville" of angels a personal attack?
That atheist just reports what he sees.
No, the *scientist just reports what he sees. The *atheist assumes that only what he can see actually exists.
A clear misunderstanding of science; science depends upon a continuing cycle of hypothesis and hypothesis testing. Your claim about atheists is plain fantasy.
Maybe he'll supply a few pin-heads to alleviate the crowded condition of angels, and to allow their vaudeville to entertain a larger population.
Huh?
OK, my imagery was obscure. It's rooted in the notion that many religious arguments are about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. I was looking off that one pin-head for a solution. ;-)
This is interesting in the light of your later comment that atheists don't get jokes.
It's his absence of faith that protects him from such commitments.
Well, note that yesterday you called atheism both a faith and a belief. I'm glad you now cleared that up.
To simplify, we should be able to accept that "faith" and "belief" are synonymous. Read no more into this than is necessary. If there is a convenient word to express the absence of faith I would prefer that to semantic gymnastics.
Decrees about condoms derive from the temporal power of the Church.
Hm. This expresses more of a "fight the power" sentiment than anything else doesn't it?
Somewhat. But I don't underestimate the power of faith, whether or not the foundation for that faith is justified. A charismatic queen bee is effective until the hive mind takes over to impose order.
Nevertheless, neither panders his disbelief to be endearing.
This is actually not true. For example, I once had a discussion with an online atheist wherein I threw in some jokes. The atheist did not get them.
See the angels discussion above.
There was more that I could comment on (Yawn!) ... but this is taking too long, and I'm getting bored.
Ec