• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"The Trouble With Atheism"

Dang, and here I thought we were gonna be able to distinguish the various monisms. But yet again, the conversation ends with a smiley.

~~ Paul
 
.....We can't afford to let people believe things that are wildly dangerous, on the chance that they might actually be in a position to implement those beliefs.

Who gets to determine what beliefs are "dangerous"?

Now, genocide is the sort of thing you might think is safely beyond the ability of ordinary citizens to implement, but sadly, a brief review of the historical literature would suggest that's not true, either.

No doubt about it:

Shocking as it is, this book--a crucial source of original research used for the bestseller Hitler's Willing Executioners--gives evidence to suggest the opposite conclusion: that the sad-sack German draftees who perpetrated much of the Holocaust were not expressing some uniquely Germanic evil, but that they were average men comparable to the run of humanity, twisted by historical forces into inhuman shapes. Browning, a thorough historian who lets no one off the moral hook nor fails to weigh any contributing factor--cowardice, ideological indoctrination, loyalty to the battalion, and reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty--interviewed hundreds of the killers, who simply could not explain how they had sunken into savagery under Hitler.......

So, "what's wrong with genocide"?
 
Well then, if god can't be supernatural, he's gotta be natural.
Sure. Now define for yourself the attributes of 'natural'.

So why say materialism or physicalism rules out god?
Depends or your definition of natural, huh?

Is this the long-awaited distinction between materialism and idealism that's finally gonna tip the table toward one or the other? Do tell!
As you know we've been here a dozen times before. Just don't pretend the epistemology of science will be useful helping you make your choice. Or, make no choice and continue -- in your case -- as a wannabe materialist/closet dualist.


Grow some balls, take a stand, deny god as a good materialist worth the name must, and get on with the arguments.


tbk: The FSM is lot's tougher to deal with than the gods in the comix who have been given attributes, natural and/or "supernatural". Names are meaningless; attributes is where it's at.
 
the FSM runs a stripper factory and has a beer volcano. Those attributes totally kick Baby Jesus' ass.
 
You have definition of 'matter' that indicates otherwise?

As to your ad hom, it sucks. Probably reminds students of your courses.

1.Yes, and 2, maybe. But only if we can agree about the definition of "sucks".
 
Hammegk said:
Sure. Now define for yourself the attributes of 'natural'.
...
Depends or your definition of natural, huh?
You said above that everything is natural. So if you think there is a god, then you must think he's natural. And if you don't think there is a god, then you must have a definition of god in mind that is ruled out by naturalism, somehow.

Grow some balls, take a stand, deny god as a good materialist worth the name must, and get on with the arguments.
And now you must have a definition of materialism that rules out whatever your definition of god is.

So I propose that you grow the balls first and tell us all your definitions. Then I promise to state whether I think there is a god given those definitions. If you will not do this, then I can only think that either you have no idea what you are talking about, or your definition of balls precludes either of us growing them.

Names are meaningless; attributes is where it's at.

Thai said:
Hammy, what "attributes" does the god you believe exists has?

Hammegk said:
Now it doesn't make sense to ask what god's attributes are, in spite of the fact that "attributes is where it's at."

All righty then.

~~ Paul
 
How many times must I state: "I don't know."

So you believe this thing certainly exists, but you have no idea what any of it's attributes are. That certainly shows how arrogantly moronic your position is.
 
Above I read a reference to the book Hitler's Willing Executioners by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. I have tried, several times, to slog my way through this book in its entirety. I cannot. The author points out, in his introduction, that the work is an extended version of a doctoral thesis, and I give him credit for admitting this, as it certainly reads like one.

I have been informed by the author, in my several attempts to tackle his work, that pretty much everyone in the world who has ever harbored even one anti-Jewish thought, or told one joke in which a jewish person was the foil, fits somewhere into his neat taxonomic scheme of the various genera and specie of the anti-semite. Kind of ironic, isn't it, given that the last I knew, Palestinian Arabs, and Syrians and Jordanians are semitic peoples too?

Perhaps this is literary criticism, better suited for a reader review on Amazon.com than in this forum topic, but it struck a nerve with me. I'd advise all readers of this post, particularly those who agree with Mr. Goldahgen's position, and can overlook his (imho) strident and sometimes hyperbolic (and clumsy) prose, and also read Victor Klemperer's I Will Bear Witness: A Diary Of The Nazi Years instead. A much more complicated picture, viewed by one on the scene, emerges.
 

Back
Top Bottom