Zeichman

You know that's NOT what I meant. Regardless of what some people think, I'm not trying to be an elitist jackass ALL of the time. Though perhaps the majority.
Anyone can align themselves with whatever metaphysical or supernatural construct they choose. Why would I care, as long as they're respectful of mine? You don't see me other other theists complaining about people who convert, nor do you see us basking in Peter's conversion. I would have imagined that a place like this would be a place where tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs was upheld. People ripping on Peter for personal things like that seems like low blows to me. Especially when he's probably not coming back to defend himself in the immediate future and that he was so popular here not long ago. I'm not trying to save anyone. I just wish people would back off of personal things like that in a public forum.

No Robots

Hmm. Must be a trend.

Ted Hoffman

Peter was and still is a respectable figure amongst atheists and as such the bar is held up high for him and he is expected to uphold the highest standards of rationality.
Turning his back on all the ground he had covered in terms of his worldview and flinging away all the gains that he had made just to satisfy a psychological or emotional need is not something that is likely to be met favorably.
Theists are almost always indoctrinated from childhood so there is nothing to be proud about being a theist unless one converted to atheism. But it takes a hell of a lot of work to be an atheist and to turn back to theism without laying out the philosophical basis for such a decision is irresponsible in my view. He made his atheism public. He cannot make his theism private. That is a double standard and this, in my view should apply to all atheists who care to write down why they are atheists. You dont convert and set up a blog and expect people to just roll over and go to sleep because we seek to make sense of the world and our actions need to make sense. As people who write and explain our positions as a matter of course, we owe each other that. He has a reputation, whether he likes it or not. And the reactions you are seeing here are from people who respect him and who value him and his contributions.
As one who made it his business to write up an essay about naturalism, and as one who has published papers alongside respected atheist figures like Carrier, Price and Lowder, he does not have the luxury of acting like some quintessential teenager having some unresolved cosmic angst and who can afford to settle for some easy, lame-ass religious crutches.
He had been accepted and had earned his place in the guild of atheist scholars and his abilities were clear: he was an exceptional person. In a sense, this kind of action (which I personally regard as pure laziness) is such a stark departure from the Kirby we have known that some even feel a tinge of betrayal.
This (ubercatholic bs) is beneath Peter and I hope he snaps out of whatever he is in, soon.

spin

"What's the ugliest part of your body?... I say your mind." - FZ

aa5874

Can't you deal with the OP? This is totally unnecessary. Again, speculative nonsense.

Zeichman

If you're just saying that he's moved on from a positivistic approach to the world, that can only be good. There's no indication, from what I can see, that he's "flinging" anything away. The few posts in his new blog are as intelligent and well-considered as anything he's ever written.
Useless, baseless, pigeonholing, condescending, and self-aggrandizing generalizations.
I would contend it takes more work to be a deistic Christian than to be either a fundamentalist or an atheist, falling into one of two extremes. It's always easier to stand when you have a wall to lean on.
I would hardly call an article advocating "naturalism" making his atheism public. Everything I've seen indicates that he probably still stands by much of it.
If people here cared so much then they e-mail him about it instead of talking crap behind his back. Complaining here is not going to accomplish anything. It's like the people who complain about elections but never vote or participate in political events.
Yawn. More condescending crap without substance.

Ted Hoffman

He said that he is following the discussion in this very thread yesterday. At least you should get some basic facts straight before you start posturing and grandstanding about the moral import of what people are doing in this thread.
I never stated that I based his making his atheism public on his article on naturalism. So you besides getting basic facts wrong and charging forward blindly in the wrong direction, you are strawmanning. Yawning is an ad hominem response that is devoid of intellectual content. Your recitation of the word "crap" tells us more about how you feel that what you can contribute to the thread. Your dramatic reactions with recitations of the word "crap" and the vacuous alliterations of adjectives like "Useless, baseless" as a response to clear ideas shows complete lack of thought.

Dominus Paradoxum

I have to say I've never understood the crutch metaphor. Is the idea supposed to be that we should deny crutches to those who need them?

Zeichman

He also said this: "So with that said, I am popping out again until further notice." Which, I think, is more relevant to what I was saying.
It was a reasonable inference on my part. On what basis, then?
Last I knew, rhetoric was allowed in casual discussions; it's not like I'm writing an argumentative paper about Peter's faith. I called your assertion baseless, useless, etc. and you have not attempted to show that I'm wrong. If you think that my use of "crap" indicates how I feel about it, then one might wonder about your use of "bs." The actual content of my post, though, has remained unaddressed.
Though it may be too late, I don't want this to get too personal.

Touche.

spin

Above all, know thyself.