From: Hermit (virus@hermit.net)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 06:29:49 MDT
The tone is easily explained. When people assert that others believe, are arrogant and bigoted - which is how I read Fred's work describing atheists - then they should expect to receive the same in abundance. Fred received it. Indeed, I returned and added to the scorn when I reread portions of the essay which didn't previously sufficiently identify the flaws he accused atheists of laboring under. All of your nitpicking does not overcome this basic and fundamental flaw in his essay. Given the fact that neither of us considers it worthwhile, I won't go into much detail or cite references for the latter half of this discussion.
As for your specific attempted responses, they fail. In very brief:
[*] If "we" are not "irreligious" then the society is not irreligious. Yet Fred's plaintive assertion is that society is irreligious, thus we are irreligious, thus he asserts we are wanton. Wanton is not as you coyly stated, "we don't seem to care", it is a term of moral condemnation and thus an epithet. 1. Untrained; undisciplined; unrestrained; hence, loose; free; luxuriant; roving; sportive.2. Wandering from moral rectitude; perverse; dissolute. 3. Specifically: Deviating from the rules of chastity; lewd; lustful; lascivious; libidinous; lecherous. Reckless; heedless; as, wanton mischief. "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)".
[*] The fight is for the freedom from religion by an oppressed minority demanding their constitutional protections from an increasingly non-representative, overbearing religious government.
[*] Not advocating "belief" in any form, but rather continuous panrational criticism, neither the CoV nor its members are in any danger of developing a faith based disease.
[*] Fred selected a group of religious maniacs in an attempt to make a point. If we select a random assortment of "great" men, I doubt that we will find Christianity mattered to nearly 100% of them. And I have no hesitation in saying that by definition Fred's supposed "Great men" were not "great men" by my definition when they advocated insane and immoral gods and their policies despite the fact that this is proven by history and their own words to have caused misery for other men. So it takes no arrogance on my part to disagree. Fred would have a great deal of difficulty reversing that argument.
[*] All of the thinkers I mentioned appear from the little we know about them, but principally from the beliefs of their era, most likely vague Platonic theists rather than deists. For some reason, as Christianities history demonstrates, deism and great thinking seldom seem to go hand in hand.
[*] I disagree on the "translation" of the tone of this document. Perhaps it feels beter to somebody more accomodating of belief, and familiar with Fred's style. I answered it as it reads to me. For example, I feel myself arguably superior to any of Fred's putative great thinkers. Yet Fred says, "A quite remarkable arrogance is needed feel oneself mentally superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis." So Fred asserts I have remarkable arrogance. I think it takes remarkable arrogance on Fred's part to make such an assertion. This is of course the answer to your question, "Bye the way, are you are co-opting Fred's rhetoric to use against him ("arrogance")?". The answer is, I had thought quite patently, yes.
[*] While I may be "wrong" (about an afterlife), as you assert, and Fred claims I "believe", I am quite correct in holding the opinion I do, as to hold any other opinion clearly means the rejection of strong evidence and the presumption that "theoretically possible" means "probable". It is also "theoretically possible" that there are fairies in the bottom of Fred's garden - and indeed, it is more likely that there are fairies there than there is an afterlife - as there is no evidence against the fairies. Yet I don't see Fred (or you for that matter) arguing that we should kowtow to these potential fairies, or even that we should accept the possibility of their existence.
[*] When you said, "Where Earth and the rest of the universe came from, we do not know." and argued that this meant, "Ultimately Fred is completely right." you are grieviously wrong. Rather than not knowing where the Earth and the Universe come from, there is better evidence for the Big Bang theory (in the form of it having made astoundingly accurate predictions) than there is for Darwinian Evolution. Yet you assert that you accept Darwinian Evolution. See the FAQ: TimeLine (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=28793) and in particular the supporting references at the bottom of the page.
[*] In contrast to Jonathan's assertion, "we have no sound idea what underlies existence itself. "But where did that come from" echoes off into infinity.", we are fairly certain that we now understand exactly where our Baryonic Universe originated, and the forces that rule it. Certainly we know enough to be able to state that the question, "But where did that come from" is an illusion caused by our nature, not an attribute of the Universe. Questions about "what came bfore the big bang" are invalid as there was no "before". See my earlier discussions with Flag on this topic under Why God cannot exist by Joe Dees & Hermit (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=32;action=display;threadid=28497;start=0)
[*] When you say, "Fred is manifestly not ignorant, neither is he disabled." right under Fred's, " For all our transistors we know no more about these matters than did
Heraclitus, and think about them less." then you are missing the point. Fred is speaking for "us" - all mankind. And he is quite patently wrong, stupid or both.
[*] Any assertion about "science" and "scientists" (i.e. holding true for all science and scientists) can be refuted by any scientist. I did this. The same of course goes for atheists. I did this too. Both are valid.
[*] Science is a method, not an ideology. Anyone not applying the method is, by definition, not a scientist.
[*] Anybody who cites appeals to authority cannot refute the citation of justified authorities in return.
[*] Those who rely on appeals to popularity cannot avoid being lampooned for it.
[*] There is a qualitative difference between believing that something is so in the face of the evidence and refusing to accept something without necessity.
[*] Grep for question marks in Fred's original essay.
[*] When one makes an entire series of negative sounding statements (however vague), as Fred did, about atheists and scientists, and leaves them hanging in mid air without using them in the closing, then there is no conclusion. Your asserting that there was one does not repair this error.
Regards
Hermit
PS, As you should be able to figure from the reply above (and, I would argue, from my original response, the answer to your demand that I answer "Yes or no? " to the question, "Either one believes that there is an afterlife, or one believes that there is not an afterlife, or one isn't sure-which means that one believes that there may be an afterlife" is I cannot answer in those terms. The overwhelming evidence against, and lack of evidence for, any form of "afterlife" leaves us no rational conclusion other than the probability (which must exist) is that the likelyhood is infestismally small. This is not a belief. It is a well supported lack of belief in an unsupported idea. And attempting to force a discussion into terms indistinguishable from "Have you stopped beating your wife" is reprehensible. No matter who attempts it.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29183> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 06:30:13 MDT