livius drusus

I'm aware of that. I was referring to IIDB standards not personal ones, as I have been for 19 pages now.

Oh I understand that very well. I'm not a particularly kind person and I have a spitting bad temper. It's just there's a time and a place, and being respectful in discussion here does not require kindness or cowtowing to beliefs you despise. Only self-control.

brighid

I would disagree. There are many reasons why a theist, or even a nontheist might not understand Richard Dawkins, although supressing that knowledge could be one. However, to say that theists are collectively suppressing Dawkin's philosophy and this is why they don't understand it (sort of a deliberate rebellion against rationality) is hardly different then a theist claiming that the reason atheists reject God is out of rebellion.

Some people genuinely do not understand certain things, especially if they have not had much exposure to diverse thought and if they lack logic and critical thinking skills, things that may be evident to others don't make sense, just as the Theory of Relativity does not make sense to myself or Livius Drusus. It may simply be a matter of perspective, and perhaps if the right person were to explain it in terms I could understand (taking into consideration my scientific knowledge gap) my understanding of the subject would be different.

I even think some people, for whatever personal reasons (be those good, bad or indifferent) will never be able to grasp certain concepts necessary to understand the limited scope of atheism, or the ideas of metaphysical naturalism (sad as that may be.)

Some theist will and do reject atheism for prejudicial reasons, some theists have no basis of knowledge to understand atheism or any of the accompanying philosophies, some don't want to understand for reasons that are none of anyone's business ...

Brighid

hope's daughter

Are you accusing moi of being insensitive to atheists who might live in my neighborhood? I play GOOD music not this rap junk full of impropriety. Heck I am going to put on Huey Lewis and the news right now! I love my 18 year olds music too! I am more open minded a Christian than you give might give me credit for.

Quote:

When someone professes not to believe in God and THEN question why God is unjust that pretty much holds the person in suspect. This seems such a simple concept yet it escapes so many Theists. What the Atheists are doing is pointing out to you that the attributes you are assigning to God contradict themselves. Themselves and in this case the professed moral values of the believers. Thus showing that the God in question cannot exist. We do the same thing with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You cannot be invisible and have a color at the same time. You cannot be a loving and just God and maintain Hell at the same time.

How do God�s attributes contradict themselves. I think it is the atheist who professes there is no God that is self contradictory with himself since he is not omniscient and knows it yet he asserts with all confidence there is no God. Of course there is a God. Hell is a place created not only on this earth but a place of eternal damnation which we subject ourselves too due to our on alliance with the one who wishes our damnation. If you do not believe in Satan I can see you having a hard time believing there is a God. Many a good Christian has themselves been disillusioned into believing there is no such thing as a fallen angel called Satan and believing that mankind is basically good but mankind has not changed since the beginning of time. The only thing that changes is our knowledge and our ability to kill more effectively with our technology. Do you feel we have become a more kind generation? The last century was the most bloodiest in the history of the world and it was not God who was doing the killing.

Quote:

I must say that some atheists are more honest than others and will ask deep and profound questions without regard to their eternal soul. I find that rather brave and daring Back in the Bronze Age and well into the Iron it was thought that the conscious mind was the "eternal soul." It was also thought that your breath was your "spirit." Alas there is nothing eternal about either of these bodily functions and the bravery amounts to little more than not being afraid of the dark.

Funny in the Bible the life of the flesh is in the blood and this was how they were to make atonement for their soul. The human body is amazing and Too many times we take it for granted. I think many a generation has been in awed of certain aspects of the our anatomy and physiology and God has allowed mankind throughout the ages to make discoveries such as the Egyptians.

God bless you (if you do not mind and anyway I think if this happened it might just be your proof)!

Gurdur

Ooooo, I missed one.
Which is why I'm still waiting for you, BTU, to justify what seems like a very irrational and worthless claim of yours.

Can you do it ?

seebs

Furthermore, it's entirely too easy to assume that someone who rejects a position doesn't understand it. For instance, in the Hell thread, I'm pretty sure that HD has shown a reasonable understanding of my model, although he sometimes seems to conflate it with calvinist/fundamentalist models... but I honestly think it's pretty clear that he has the ability to understand it, and probably *does* understand it; he just rejects it.

Not everyone who ends up rejecting the stuff Dawkins says about metaphysical naturalism is unable to understand it; some just end up not seeing the world that way.

For me, the deal-breaker is probably art. If the universe is so utterly inhospitable, how the hell did we end up with creatures with the capacity and *spare resources* for art? Even when I was a metaphysical naturalist, I rejected the Dawkins-style existential angst as overblown and pretentious. I've since come to realize that it's probably less pretentious than I thought it was, but I still don't think it's *true*.

Gurdur

Actually, you have a point there --- though I'm not sure it's the point you wanted to make, but anyhow:

To describe the universe as "cold and uncaring" is also wrong, in that it uses emotionally laden terms in describing the universe.

The universe just is; it neither cares nor doesn't care, so to speak.
A subtle distinction, but one important to addressing the emotional underpinnings of nihilism, for example.

Heathen Dawn

LOL LOL LOL! Gurdur do you realise what you’ve said just now? It makes as much sense as saying “that woman is neither pregnant nor non-pregnant”.

Stones don’t care. Trees don’t care. The universe doesn’t care. Either the universe cares, or it doesn’t. You can’t have both. The universe just is, and it doesn’t care.

seebs

Fair enough. When I read Dawkins, I always hear an undercurrent of existentialist angst. Methinks he doth protest too much; I think he's too strident in insisting that the universe is neutral, and this sounds like resentment to my ears.

I am not sure that it's wrong to describe a purely naturalistic universe as "uncaring". After all, isn't this just the "strong/weak atheism" debate all over again? If it doesn't care, it is necessarily uncaring.

Biff the unclean

Easy enough. Just compare the definition you looked up with your previous charges of ad homs. Like Starboy said you throw the word around like it was some kind of magical thing.
If you'd calm down a little you might have more luck following the conversation. Might I ask if you are an undergrad too? I don't want a repeat of my misjudging of Magus maturity

Gurdur

ROFL !
So you've got no actual proof, you just made a childish insult you can't back up.
Dearie, dearie me: how irrational of you !

I suggest you calm down, stop making ridiculous claims you can't back up, and learn some logic.
The link to the Logic FAQ was given above; use it !

I wouldn't worry; I don't think you're a competent judge of maturity.