A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Stop Me If You've Heard This Already....
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hey! Those were perfectly yummy bacon! Now I'm sad.. :-)
What Ann did is pure provocation, absolutely irresponsible. And I am still stunned that she gave out her private information. "anyone who wants a piece of me, come and get it". ANN! BEFORE you act, never think about just yourself, but also your family and friends, that can now be traced with the information you just released.
I worry for her too. And that demonstrates the seriousness of the situation we face with Islam. Are we to fear even discussing the irrational and extreme danger that this world-view presents? When our leaders are more concerned with conceding our freedoms in the stead of addressing the barbarity of the foe of our liberty, they must be awakened. By the force of shock, if necessary.
Still, I am too cowardly myself to do what Ann has done. As you say, what about our families? Is this how the forefathers thought? I cannot risk my life, my wealth, my family? Freedom is not worth it! Concede freedom to ensure security!
That is the position of cowards.
Undoubtedly Ann, like the pastor, like the newspaper columnist (now disappeared), like anyone who offends the delicate sensibilities of the idol worshipers of Islam, Ann will receive a fatwa with a price on her head.
We must develop a method of dealing with the barbarities of this increasingly populous worldview. It must be decisive, quick and public.
If ever there were a worldview that deserves to be banned from our nation, Islam via the Qur'an is it.
Read the Qur'an on-line. I have. It is not the religion of peace. It is the religion of hate, force, and destruction, and anti-rationality.
Xenophobia is fear of unknown strangers, as I understand it. What we have here is expectation of known responses to a known document with known content: an entirely different situation.
It seems to me that the middle position would be one of responding, reacting to ever escalating, if isolated, attacks based on a known ideology. Islam demonstrates daily that it cannot and will not tolerate differences or the "other". Christians are purged just the same as Jews were purged 80 years ago, only on a smaller scale, if no less brutal. Internecine destruction within Islamic countries is a daily deadly affair. American Muslims are silent, except to admit anonymously to pollsters that they would prefer Sharia.
Given this, what sort of middle road plan would resolve this issue? And would that plan allow people to openly critique the values of Islam and its originator?
The Islamic nations have introduced action in the UN which would prohibit criticism of religion. It has not been approved, of course, but the undertones of total intolerance and the affect on free speech are clear.
There is no question that Qur'an burning, like flag burning and "Piss Christ" art, is provocative. Ann's intent was to demonstrate resistance to domestic fools on the Left who wish to clamp down on Free Speech in order to mollify the Muslims - who burn flags and bibles and occasionally people. Which is the more damaging in the long run? Which goes against the U.S.Constitution?
Sooner or later everyone will be forced to choose sides. Our freedom from coercion will be at stake.
I saw "Unthinkable" when it was a new release rental. I don't remember the details of the film- just that it focused on the moral dimension of torture. I dig Sam Jackson.
Very tough questions. Part of me says 2+2=4. The other part perceives a whole lot of grey area. I'm conflicted.
I think the movie is available on streaming netflix. I'm gonna pull it up.
I hesitated to send you there. I confess, there was something of a perverse motivation there. I knew the piece wouldn't exactly commend itself to you, but that was the point- to be controversial. My own response was rather mixed.
The metaphysical position of the Perennial Philosophy is, admittedly, not the most accessible because of its obvious contradictions. The principle of an exoteric and esoteric dimension to the world's religions is essentially a mystical doctrine- one that has prompted an enormous output of literature from every quarter for, against, and everywhere in between. The strange thing is that this universalist view unwaveringly supports those (Christians, Muslims, Hindus) who most strongly reject such a view.
For me, the Traditionalist's scathing critiques of Philosophical Materialism and their defense of traditional religions in contradistinction to the New Age, Scientism, and religious fundamentalism was influential. It was their writings which prompted me, for the first time, to even consider Theism as a logical possibility.
OK then. Please don't shrink from controversy on my account. And don't fail to correct me when I am wrong. This blog is not about what is right, it is about what is true and valid.
Which writing in particular influenced you? I'm interested in Materialist arguments, pro and con.
Refreshing. I envision blood vessels popping out of your forehead when you write. I recall when I first discovered your blogspot and read through a bunch of the threads I said to myself, "This Stan certainly has a passion for polemic; he must have been the Agent Smith of atheists."
"This is blog is not about what is right, it is about what is true and valid" I'm not sure I know what you mean. Doesn't that ancient Latin maxim say it best- Vincit Omnia Veritas?
On metaphysical naturalism- I would recommend the Christian scientist and metaphysician Wolfgang Smith, also an adherent of the Philosophia Perennis. The essay, "The Plague of Scientistic Belief" was my introduction to his material.
webcitation.org/5XP1NFp3B
Also, the book, "Science and Myth" is interesting.
I differentiate "right" from "truth" as being opinion vs objectively universal. I'm not sure that most people would agree. But then they might also claim to be "right".
Actually I am a calm writer; the steam hissing from my ears relieves the pressure. I didn't get the agent Smith reference, had to look it up - but maybe so, maybe so. With Atheists, I have the deciding advantage: I know logic and rational statement analysis. Atheists just think they are rational because they reject. Rejection based on emotional, non-rational issues does not make for rationality. But it does make for arrogance, despite ignorance.
The rational analysis of Atheism is the main thrust of this blogspot. But culture and politics are also very much on the table here. I've got a pretty strong sense of what you're against. I'm not as certain as to what you affirm- either religiously or politically. We'll steer clear of religion, let's stick with the "less contentious"? subject of politics.
I think we can agree that modern political Conservatism is complex and extremely nuanced. What "strain" of Conservatism do you most identify with? Or, perhaps, a better question, which Conservatives do you think you clash with and why?
14 comments:
Hey! Those were perfectly yummy bacon! Now I'm sad.. :-)
What Ann did is pure provocation, absolutely irresponsible. And I am still stunned that she gave out her private information. "anyone who wants a piece of me, come and get it". ANN! BEFORE you act, never think about just yourself, but also your family and friends, that can now be traced with the information you just released.
I worry for her too. And that demonstrates the seriousness of the situation we face with Islam. Are we to fear even discussing the irrational and extreme danger that this world-view presents? When our leaders are more concerned with conceding our freedoms in the stead of addressing the barbarity of the foe of our liberty, they must be awakened. By the force of shock, if necessary.
Still, I am too cowardly myself to do what Ann has done. As you say, what about our families? Is this how the forefathers thought? I cannot risk my life, my wealth, my family? Freedom is not worth it! Concede freedom to ensure security!
That is the position of cowards.
Undoubtedly Ann, like the pastor, like the newspaper columnist (now disappeared), like anyone who offends the delicate sensibilities of the idol worshipers of Islam, Ann will receive a fatwa with a price on her head.
We must develop a method of dealing with the barbarities of this increasingly populous worldview. It must be decisive, quick and public.
If ever there were a worldview that deserves to be banned from our nation, Islam via the Qur'an is it.
Read the Qur'an on-line. I have. It is not the religion of peace. It is the religion of hate, force, and destruction, and anti-rationality.
I have to agree with Ana on this one. Irresponsible and provocative. Let's stir the pot some more.
I say that there really is a position that is not naive pluralist leftist tolerance and is not tribalist good vs evil xenophobia.
Xenophobia is fear of unknown strangers, as I understand it. What we have here is expectation of known responses to a known document with known content: an entirely different situation.
It seems to me that the middle position would be one of responding, reacting to ever escalating, if isolated, attacks based on a known ideology. Islam demonstrates daily that it cannot and will not tolerate differences or the "other". Christians are purged just the same as Jews were purged 80 years ago, only on a smaller scale, if no less brutal. Internecine destruction within Islamic countries is a daily deadly affair. American Muslims are silent, except to admit anonymously to pollsters that they would prefer Sharia.
Given this, what sort of middle road plan would resolve this issue? And would that plan allow people to openly critique the values of Islam and its originator?
The Islamic nations have introduced action in the UN which would prohibit criticism of religion. It has not been approved, of course, but the undertones of total intolerance and the affect on free speech are clear.
There is no question that Qur'an burning, like flag burning and "Piss Christ" art, is provocative. Ann's intent was to demonstrate resistance to domestic fools on the Left who wish to clamp down on Free Speech in order to mollify the Muslims - who burn flags and bibles and occasionally people. Which is the more damaging in the long run? Which goes against the U.S.Constitution?
Sooner or later everyone will be forced to choose sides. Our freedom from coercion will be at stake.
"Sooner or later everyone will be forced to choose sides. Our freedom from coercion will be at stake."
These words, may indeed, be true. The enemies of freedom have always abounded,threatening us from both within and without.
Stan, I'm sticking my neck out on this one- I'd be curious at the kind of response you'd deliver to the following essay at:
sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw8_blackhirst-oldmeadow.html
Go easy on me guy.
Chris, I'll go there now. And I'd like your response to a movie on this subject called "Unthinkable", with Samuel Jackson. Alternate ending.
hey,
I saw "Unthinkable" when it was a new release rental. I don't remember the details of the film- just that it focused on the moral dimension of torture. I dig Sam Jackson.
Very tough questions.
Part of me says 2+2=4.
The other part perceives a whole lot of grey area. I'm conflicted.
I think the movie is available on streaming netflix. I'm gonna pull it up.
Chris,
I read that article and commented on it above. I was not too kind to it.
I hesitated to send you there. I confess, there was something of a perverse motivation there. I knew the piece wouldn't exactly commend itself to you, but that was the point- to be controversial. My own response was rather mixed.
The metaphysical position of the Perennial Philosophy is, admittedly, not the most accessible because of its obvious contradictions. The principle of an exoteric and esoteric dimension to the world's religions is essentially a mystical doctrine- one that has prompted an enormous output of literature from every quarter for, against, and everywhere in between. The strange thing is that this universalist view unwaveringly supports those (Christians, Muslims, Hindus) who most strongly reject such a view.
For me, the Traditionalist's scathing critiques of Philosophical Materialism and their defense of traditional religions in contradistinction to the New Age, Scientism, and religious fundamentalism was influential. It was their writings which prompted me, for the first time, to even consider Theism as a logical possibility.
OK then. Please don't shrink from controversy on my account. And don't fail to correct me when I am wrong. This blog is not about what is right, it is about what is true and valid.
Which writing in particular influenced you? I'm interested in Materialist arguments, pro and con.
Stan,
Refreshing. I envision blood vessels popping out of your forehead when you write. I recall when I first discovered your blogspot and read through a bunch of the threads I said to myself, "This Stan certainly has a passion for polemic; he must have been the Agent Smith of atheists."
"This is blog is not about what is right, it is about what is true and valid" I'm not sure I know what you mean.
Doesn't that ancient Latin maxim say it best- Vincit Omnia Veritas?
On metaphysical naturalism- I would recommend the Christian scientist and metaphysician Wolfgang Smith, also an adherent of the Philosophia Perennis. The essay, "The Plague of Scientistic Belief" was my introduction to his material.
webcitation.org/5XP1NFp3B
Also, the book, "Science and Myth" is interesting.
I differentiate "right" from "truth" as being opinion vs objectively universal. I'm not sure that most people would agree. But then they might also claim to be "right".
Actually I am a calm writer; the steam hissing from my ears relieves the pressure. I didn't get the agent Smith reference, had to look it up - but maybe so, maybe so. With Atheists, I have the deciding advantage: I know logic and rational statement analysis. Atheists just think they are rational because they reject. Rejection based on emotional, non-rational issues does not make for rationality. But it does make for arrogance, despite ignorance.
Steam Hissing Stan,
Good, my comment was made with a cracked smile.
The rational analysis of Atheism is the main thrust of this blogspot. But culture and politics are also very much on the table here. I've got a pretty strong sense of what you're against. I'm not as certain as to what you affirm- either religiously or politically. We'll steer clear of religion, let's stick with the "less contentious"? subject of politics.
I think we can agree that modern political Conservatism is complex and extremely nuanced. What "strain" of Conservatism do you most identify with? Or, perhaps, a better question, which Conservatives do you think you clash with and why?
Post a Comment