Due to the success of the last articles blog (in the viewing sense at least) I decided to keep it going, and as I’m so far behind on my blogroll, I’ll be putting a few of these type of posts up consecutively it seems.
Maybe they can get along after all? No, it seems the debate on this continues.
As mentioned in the previous article blog, the outsider test (OTF) debate is going strong and loud, with atheists seemingly, for the most part agreeing (see the comments section on any post by Loftus at his blog) and theists, for the most part disagreeing (here, here, here). This goes back to what I was saying to Wartick (see comments section), and a general problem I have with a priori/a posteriori/syllogistic proofs. Admittedly, perhaps it is simply my failings as a student of this stuff (as Wartick said, I seem to have trouble articulating my exact concern), perhaps I simply don’t know enough about logic etc to fully grasp why the apparent relativism of a priori/a posteriori/syllogistic arguments is acceptable. Is it purely an academic exercise? How do we separate our prior theological assumptions when reviewing the legitimacy of the ensuing debate on the OTF? On either side of the fence. This applies to any and all a priori/a posteriori/syllogistic proofs, how do we divorce, what we previously accept as true (atheists don’t believe in a god or gods, theists do) from the resulting theological debate? I guess I should also say, that I don’t outright discount a priori/a posteriori/syllogistic proofs (as mentioned here), I’m only spitballing my concerns in order to hopefully get some response and put this issue to bed.
More on the above article, here.
An article on the “Gnu Atheism” particularly in response to Jeff Sparrow. I essentially charged Sparrow’s article (on FB) with the fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc“, as mentioned below atheism makes one claim or says nothing (“I believe or reasonably hold, a god or gods don’t exist“, or “I lack the belief a god or gods exist“), it says nothing about your political views, to suggest otherwise is fallacious. As we see from this article, atheists can and do disagree with Hitchens and Harris on their political views, but this again, has nothing to do with atheism.
And Russell Glasser also chimes in (with the above article). As a personal hero of mine, as are all the cast of the “Atheist Experience” (for more on them watch their show here, visit their website here , and view their blog here) he continues to provide clear examples of clear, logical thought.
This seems pretty disgusting to me, religious person or not, Christian or not, quotes like this:
“The remark about “not reading any book written by a sinner” reflects a failure, or a refusal, to acknowledge that homosexual activities are not just generic sins. They are sins against nature. They are perversions. Hence, the author is not just “a sinner,” he is a person with a seriously warped sexuality, a person with a serious problem. Moreover, he glories in and is proud of this perversion. He is openly living in a sexual relationship with another man and is so proud of this that he dedicates his book to him. One wonders: Suppose the author had dedicated the book to a minor child with whom he was having an affair.“
Are just plain offensive. She equates homosexuality with pedophilia, she claims a person who dedicates a book to a person they love, as glorifying his perversion? I emplore Christians to come out and stand up against this kind of hateful rhetoric (as I know many Christians do not subscribe to this kind of hate speech). Do consenting adults, who are hurting no-one, deserve the right to freedom?
If you’re a climate change denialist (anthropomorphic or not) I haven’t checked his sources, so don’t assail me if you disagree with his figures. Consider this under the headline “interesting“.
With this issue becoming ever more popular in Western society, it’s interesting to monitor the discussion, even if it is only the left’s view on the right.
I’d like to think educated and charitable Christians, who try to understand atheism and atheists, as opposed to simply pigeon-holing them (us) wouldn’t make these kind of arguments, I do have to wonder whether this is a “preaching to the choir” type of thing though, in the sense that, Voris is simply playing on outdated, yet popular conceptions of atheists, and atheism, to score browny points with his base. Then again, he could actually believe what he says, in which case I disagree. I see this alot, it seems atheism is charged with more than the basic 2 positions I would essentially ascribe it; (1) strong atheism– I believe there is no god or gods, and (2)- weak atheism– I lack a belief in a god or gods (as a response to the particular evidence seen), for a more in-depth discussion on this, visit here. Remember- “all atheists are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are strong atheists“. As far as theory on morality, cosmology etc, this is not atheism’s task to answer, you could say it is (philosophical) naturalism’s, materialism’s etc, which are admittedly atheistic, but it is not atheism proper’s responsibility, atheism is not a worldview, it is a response to a single claim.
I included this article mainly for the links, many theists talk up William Lane Craig, and as I am a relative doofus, I certainly respect him, and his intelligence, other atheists though, aren’t as deferential.
There are right ways to protest, and there are wrong ways, this is an example of the wrong way (with some examples of th right way).
As if there was ever any doubt, in the sense that, of course theists (not a particular dig at theists, they are simply mentioned in this article), of any stripe are not going to support opposing or opposite ideologies (seems a natural human response). I get the impression many theists at least have some respect for other theists (perhaps atheists too, obviously not based on the above data) as they at least “believe in a god or gods“? Am I off on this? Atheists I think represent something, well maybe not foreign, but threatening, perhaps only in the sense that they discuss a life without religion. Have we become “the other“?
It might be hard for me to accept that this stuff actually happens, if I didn’t know people whom have had similar experiences.
And Ophelia Benson’s agreement below.
We see a trend in some of the polling data in some of the above articles on some of the discrimination of atheists, however much you agree with that (or not) here is some anecdotal reporting on more of the same (I leave it for you decide if it is a real problem).
More on the New York legislation of gay rights.
This makes me feel good inside…*shiver*
Hopefully the gay rights issue will one day be as silly to look back on as this issue is.
Issue of church/state separation? To the Christians who get upset by this post, replace Christian band with Muslim band, which is being promoted by the government.
Clearly a case of an unhinged person. It’s a tricky thing to establish causation, and if it was just a Christian who murdered someone, I wouldn’t say it was Christianity’s fault, just an incidence of a Christian doing something wrong. But this man said he was commanded by God, if we accept personal experience, as many Christians do, remembering that God does commit murder (the flood, Exodus 12:29) and command it (Numbers 25: 3-5, Numbers 15-19, Deuteronomy 2: 31-34, Deuteronomy 7: 1-5 etc), though obviously contradicting himself with “thou salt not murder” commandment, we may be able to see a causal link here?
I don’t want to get into a huge thing on what the Bible says, as admittedly I’d probably lose, I think we can accept that God commands murder in the Bible. If we do accept this, then it seems at least plausible that this man was commanded to do so (as he did kill homosexuals, something commanded in the Bible- “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying: “If a man lie with mankind as he lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13.). Obviously no Christian is going to accept this, and that’s fine enough, I’m not going for cheap rhetorical hits against them, simply asking the question, to any and all.
This is bleak. I’m so glad I was lucky enough to be born in a place like Australia, could you imagine this being your life?
Things are just a mess over there.
A paragon of liberal, and free thought.
I’d be curious what my religious readers (if I even have any) think of the church state separation issue. I’m obviously for it, in the sense that I like a neutral government that allows all religious people and non religious people to live without the government dictating to them what they must believe.
Look at Nergal go, he’s suffering with cancer, and still being a rapscallion. And strong too, the Bible’s pretty thick!