[WikiEN-l] Bible websites
Ray Saintonge
saintonge at telus.net
Tue Jul 7 22:11:07 UTC 2009
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
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list