FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Smelodies on July 07, 2011, 07:43:28 PM
-
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2011/07/oh-hell-is-elevatorgate-going-to-ruin.html (http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2011/07/oh-hell-is-elevatorgate-going-to-ruin.html)
-
I've been fascinated by this whole thing for the last few days. Dawkins certainly behaved like an idiot, but what really interested me was the flame war that erupted before he even stuck his nose in. It's been a stunning reminder of the fragility of the male ego and has made me realize how much misogyny comes out of dudes' fear of the power women have to reject them.
-
"What do women want?" Sigmund Freud once famously asked. Aretha Franklin answered him just as famously: "R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me!"
I stopped reading right there.
-
Dawkins, what an insipid-arse.
He sez the world would be better without religion and, in fact, it would be
JUST THE SAME.
Gettin' rid of (MOST) fiction does not increase non-evil;
Social-Darwinism sucked just badly as religion.
A monkey, fine or foul, in a Pope suit, Billy Graham suit, Dali Lama suit or a Darwin suit will still be a good or evil ape.
The Origin of Jesus Christ (Part I) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzY2bVsZK5s#)
The Origin of Jesus Christ (Part II) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sckuqPulRGk#)
-
I never thought I would write this but: What Tor Hershman said.
I like Dawkins for "The Selfish Gene," and it pretty much ends there. I happen to be an atheist, but I do not need bullies like him being the ambassadors of my personal beliefs. I wish he and Hitchens and Dennett (all of them smart men who I respect, the last having written one of my favorite books of all time) would all just stick to their original strengths: biologist, smart political loudmouth, and cognitive philosopher, respectively.
-
I never thought I would write this but: What Tor Hershman said.
I like Dawkins for "The Selfish Gene," and it pretty much ends there. I happen to be an atheist, but I do not need bullies like him being the ambassadors of my personal beliefs. I wish he and Hitchens and Dennett (all of them smart men who I respect, the last having written one of my favorite books of all time) would all just stick to their original strengths: biologist, smart political loudmouth, and cognitive philosopher, respectively.
Indeed, Jon From Maplewood, the truth IS hard to swallow.
Well, not for moi, but that's just moi.
Anywho, a few years ago I was cyberly contacted by an ole high school [Mapletown Jr. Sr. High] buddy. Well, the tale of we two going to the Holy Roller meeting is a classic. (See blog)
It seems, while in college, he went to a lecture by Madilyn Murry O’Hair and it seems she was a totally unlikeable person.
Now, Jon, think about this. . . if you were the evil religious authority, that ALWAYS approve or disapprove ALL major media, here in our empire, would you pick a likable Atheist ORRRRRR a most disagreeable Athest to have the public platform?
If you read me blog, this is the brother of the madeout with author moi mentioned.
Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor
-
Personally, I get cranky enough about the deathgrip held on the world by ancient superstitions that I don't mind having a few obstreperous loudmouths out there willing to take on the fight. I'm not sure how they qualify as "bullies" for simply making arguments; it's not like they use their unfathomable institutional power to abet the spread of AIDS in Africa, for instance. The Pope, now there's a bully.
-
Chocolate Thunder, NO!
-
This just makes me glad I stopped reading blogs like Pharyngula and such. I'll go back and visit sometimes, and a few skims through the comments makes me want to run screaming.
I'm fully in favor of leaving behind bronze age mythologies and all that, but do they have to be so nasty about it?
-
This just makes me glad I stopped reading blogs like Pharyngula and such. I'll go back and visit sometimes, and a few skims through the comments makes me want to run screaming.
I'm fully in favor of leaving behind bronze age mythologies and all that, but do they have to be so nasty about it?
Because the stakes are so low.
-
Am I a bully?
-
The Tomiverse is attractive to me (As is the Werner Herzogiverse) is attractive to me because so many people in my peer group are so ANTI-religion. I'm a stone-cold atheist. But there's got be room for believing in SOMETHING. Dawkins and Hitchens are such gasbag buzzkills--so unnecessary in a world with real problems. (Some of my best friends believe in God--I swear!)
-
Well, if you think the world's real problems can be addressed squarely while 98% of the population concentrates on trying to appease/suck up to invisible superheroes who live in outer space, then I guess active efforts at snapping them out of it would seem unnecessary.
Atheists must be the only group who are even better than liberals at turning on their own.
-
POPE GUY The Pontiff Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfNJWOZPbSw#)
-
Atheists must be the only group who are even better than liberals at turning on their own.
Gads, CWN, when I frist released my "Awful Facts - Part I,"
[The basic tale of “The Origin Of Jesus Christ"]
waaaaay back @ original Mp3.com, me thunk to iself,
"This is gonna get me killed."
HOWEVER, there were many 'hope you die(s)' but only one 'death threat', the VAST majority of negative responses were from Atheists that had spent years configuring tales about Hay Zeus'
non-super-human activities and such.
Me wee, non-Harry Potteresque tale of Ovid bein’ a
smarty-robed kid, writin’ the Jesus tale as a PolySci parable, got panned royally by many Atheists.
As with any group not so small, some are wretchedly terrible,
a few are genuinely civilized and most. . .are most.
I suppose it boils down to, are you an Atheist ‘cause grandpa used to corn-hole ya while yammerin’ scripture or izzzz you an Athest ‘cause there ain’t a worthwhile god and/or devil?
-
Well, now I don't know WHAT to believe.
-
Atheists must be the only group who are even better than liberals at turning on their own.
Gads, CWN, when I frist released my "Awful Facts - Part I,"
[The basic tale of “The Origin Of Jesus Christ"]
waaaaay back @ original Mp3.com, me thunk to iself,
"This is gonna get me killed."
HOWEVER, there were many 'hope you die(s)' but only one 'death threat', the VAST majority of negative responses were from Atheists
Were you getting a lot of "What the hell are you talking about?"
-
Well, if you think the world's real problems can be addressed squarely while 98% of the population concentrates on trying to appease/suck up to invisible superheroes who live in outer space, then I guess active efforts at snapping them out of it would seem unnecessary.
Atheists must be the only group who are even better than liberals at turning on their own.
I was just talking about this the other day, actually!
Not believing in god is totally cool. You can tell because I'm doing it. HOWEVER, there's a vocal minority of atheists who basically treat atheism as a religion. It is right and good to distance yourself from these people. They are shitheads. One of the major problems people have with organized religion is the blind adherence of dogma that leads to things like crusades against gay people, punishing women for having sex, and what have you. Rigid dogmatic beliefs are rigid dogmatic beliefs, and they lead to some fucked up shit. CUT IT OUT, YOU GUYS!!!
When it gets to the point where you're saying things like "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, people who believe things that I don't are inherently inferior, everyone should believe what I believe, hello I'm Christopher Hitchens, &c" you may as well put a statue of Charles Darwin in the northeast corner of your house and leave him offerings.
Those atheist billboards that I see around sometimes are espousing exactly the right attitude. There's probably no god, relax, and do right by yourself and yours. That should be the end of it, but it's not for some people. They're just swapping out "god" for "science" and saying the same awful stuff.
In summation: If you pride yourself on being rational and still engage in magical thinking, that means you are on some straight bullshit and I will fight you.
-
One of the major problems people have with organized religion is the blind adherence of dogma that leads to things like crusades against gay people, punishing women for having sex, and what have you.
I don't get it. What do atheists do that is equivalent to these? Being rude, arrogant and overbearing doesn't seem to me comparable to actively crusading for limitations on other people's rights. (not to mention existence, if you want to engage with some real fundamentalists).
When it gets to the point where you're saying things like "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, people who believe things that I don't are inherently inferior...
That would indeed be pretty bad, except that I don't believe either you or I have ever seen an atheist claim this. I also don't see the problem with thinking that if the proposition that there is no God is true, then the proposition that there is a God must be untrue. Some people may not be able to pick between these irreconcilable ideas, but if you do pick one, it seems you kind of have to reject the other.
There are rude and self-righteous people in every field of endeavor, but I don't understand why people get so apoplectic specifically about the rudeness of atheists, unless it's based on the old and dubious idea that people's religious beliefs are tender blossoms uniquely entitled to protection from criticism.
-
I don't get it. What do atheists do that is equivalent to these? Being rude, arrogant and overbearing doesn't seem to me comparable to actively crusading for limitations on other people's rights. (not to mention existence, if you want to engage with some real fundamentalists).
There are a small handful of atheists who basically think that religious people are inherently inferior to us. That was the thesis of that awful Bill Maher movie. That kind of thinking could lead to persecution. However, we're talking about a small subset of the small atheist community.
There are some atheists that I could totally see persecuting people if they had the people and authority to do it. But they don't. That doesn't make it any less gross, though.
There are rude and self-righteous people in every field of endeavor, but I don't understand why people get so apoplectic specifically about the rudeness of atheists, unless it's based on the old and dubious idea that people's religious beliefs are tender blossoms uniquely entitled to protection from criticism.
Sometimes people get carried away, and cross the line that separates "criticism" from "being a dick." If they do that, I reserve the right to say, "hey you're being a dick." That's true for pretty much any given belief, though.
-
"Inherently inferior"? Really? Speaking literally now. Inherently? Not even, say "dumber" as in "less cognizant of fact" but inherently inferior?
And I agree that there are people like you describe in every school of belief, but here we're talking about a tiny subset of a very small, nearly powerless, and widely reviled minority, so why get so incensed about it?
-
"Inherently inferior"? Really? Speaking literally now. Inherently? Not even, say "dumber" as in "less cognizant of fact" but inherently inferior?
And I agree that there are people like you describe in every school of belief, but here we're talking about a tiny subset of a very small, nearly powerless, and widely reviled minority, so why get so incensed about it?
Bill Maher has repeatedly called religion a neurological disorder.
I don't want people lumping me in with Bill Maher in general, but in this case he's making us look bad.
-
Well, only in Nazi medicine does neurological disorder equate to inherent inferiority, but I've made my point.
-
Anyway, we atheists have to stop being so defensive and worried about what other people will think of us. Right-wingers, for instance, are glad to have bomb-throwing fringe types like Michael Savage out there, because it makes them look reasonable.
-
I agree, Cavorting. And if you believe religions are wishful thinking, making wishes to imaginary friends, etc., then it follows you believe religion is a delusion. Why dress that up to mean something else?
-
I can HEAR you
-
Indeed, Dawkins, if’in moi understands him correctly, states that the world would be better if everyone were Atheists but I know it would just the same, orrrrr, in me wee words – “An ape in a Pope Uniform, a Billy Graham Costume or a Darwin Suit would still be an ape, the question is –‘Are they a good ape or a bad ape’.
That is why Atheism is flushed down the universal toilet with all, all that could be fit on the page, religions in this video
Hey! Hey! We're The Humans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s#)
BTW, interesting note, a couple of weeks ago I got to see the first public reaction to that video.
I seldom need to be surrounded by a bunch of YUPPIES, but. . .moi ‘twere and since they thought bein’ cleaver, with the old Hippie, would be fun I got one to use his atomic space-age telephone to
look-up me YouTube vids.
They decided to watch HHWTH.
Right after the vid started, others came outta their offices with a
“What are you watching?!?”
They gathered about the cyber fireplace.
Chuckles, then dead silence, then smiles, then deadpan ensued, however. . . . the ending got a 100% huge LOL. I was MOST surprised, and humbled.
I just put me noggin’ down and said “That you very much.” Gad, I even forgot to place “Much” with “Munch.”
-
Well, if you think the world's real problems can be addressed squarely while 98% of the population concentrates on trying to appease/suck up to invisible superheroes who live in outer space, then I guess active efforts at snapping them out of it would seem unnecessary.
That was, in a word, awesome! Couldn't agree more and perfectly put. I may need to have that tatooed somewhere.
CWN- I salute you!
-
Wait, why are we obligated to like assholes because they share our politics? I'm thinking more about Hitchens than Dawkins here (I've heard stories from trusted sources that Hitchens is a completely amoral prick, in all fairness they're hearsay but I believe them, and besides there's that whole Iraq war thing), but I find both of their writing on this topic boorish and reductive. Both Terry Eagleton (an agnostic Marxist) and Chris Hedges (an antiwar lefty and divinity school dropout) have effectively demonstrated that both Hitchens and Dawkins base their entire anti-religious positions on straw man, ad hominem arguments.
Incidentally I'm an agnostic Jew who frequently prays to nobody. Like Zizek, I'm practically Maoist in thinking that churches should be turned into grain silos or palaces of culture -- but also like Zizek, I like Christianity, particularly the Leninist part of it.
-
Like Zizek, I'm practically Maoist in thinking that churches should be turned into grain silos or palaces of culture -- but also like Zizek, I like Christianity, particularly the Leninist part of it.
Synchronistically, I listened to a Zizek talk Sunday on the Intelligence Squared podcast. I like him too.
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/slavoj-zizek (http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/slavoj-zizek)
Not as much as Jennifer Michael Hecht though.
-
Incidentally I'm an agnostic Jew...
Sooooo, you're not sure if Jews exist or not?
Well, ole Tor can straighten you out on that point with me wee
mini-doc
Tor Hershman's "AMEN (hotep IV - that is)" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90#)
OH!
That's what you ment, nevermind.
Special Thanks to Rosanne Rossanadana.
Stay, sit, stay, roll-over, stay.....
say, are 3/4 of the folks in Haiti eatin' sun-dried mud cookies today?
How GREEN of them.
-
I guess that must be directed at me as much as anyone. I didn't say anyone is obligated to "like" anybody--as it happens, I do believe Hitchens is an amoral prick and don't like anything about him except his anti-religion writing. I simply find it strange and counter-productive how quick self-professed atheists are to disavow people working on what they say is their own side.
I have a brother, for instance, who is a very confirmed conservative, but a relatively civil and thoughtful one. He doesn't "like" Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly personally. But he is perfectly happy to have them out there doing what they do, because they move the parameters of acceptable debate in the direction he favors. That's how you prevail in the long run. That's why we've ended up with an entire Republican party that would have been dismissed as fringey kooks in 1965 and a Democratic party that's basically to the right of Nixon.
I think you mischaracterize Eagleton and Hedges. Eagleton is a believing Catholic and Hedges may have dropped out of divinity school but hasn't disavowed religion. I haven't read their critiques of Hitchens and wouldn't be equipped to evaluate them on theological grounds if I did--any more than I could evaluate the depth of Jeanne Dixon's astrological knowledge if she were to debate Penn Jillette on the topic. But I can say for sure that to discount Hitchen's arguments because of his unlikeability is the ultimate in ad hominem argument.
-
Ron Paul and I both agree that pot should be legalized.
QED.
-
But I can say for sure that to discount Hitchen's arguments because of his unlikeability is the ultimate in ad hominem argument.
I think I was the one who started you down this long path when I wrote that I hate having Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett as the ambassadors of my point of view. But I also think you misunderstood me. I do not discount Hitchens' arguments at all. I simply do not like the delivery mechanism. You do not seem to understand this because you are too much like Hitchens, employing phrases like "invisible superheroes who live in outer space" to get your point across. Nearly all of my dearest friends, including my wife, believe in god, and to ridicule them for it by using phrases like "invisible superheroes who live in outer space" is exactly my issue. It is nasty and counterproductive.
-
Probably my worse sin in using that phrase was plagiarism. I took it from David Rees. I dunno, Jon, sorry, can't help it. I say nasty things about lots of different types of people--so does the man who brought us all together here on this website--but again, there does seem to be this cultural disposition that mocking people's religious belief is on a whole other order of over-the-top nastiness than mocking their political beliefs or musical tastes or choice of clothing, and I don't agree with that. People can take responsibility for what they believe.
Also, Newt Gingrich and I agree that the government should not be able to quarter troops in my house. See? I can build bridges.
-
It is nasty and counterproductive.
Of course it depends on the context. If you say it after vows are exchanged at a wedding or after a clergyman officiates a funeral, I would agree with you. If you're talking about the nature of God in a dorm room, around a campfire or on a radio show message board, I think it's perfectly reasonable to characterize the imaginary magic man in that manner if you believe there is no evidence for a (judgemental) creator with an interest in humans.
-
...there does seem to be this cultural disposition that mocking people's religious belief is on a whole other order of over-the-top nastiness than mocking their political beliefs or musical tastes or choice of clothing, and I don't agree with that.
"People are sensitive about their looks and I don't agree with that. So I am going to continue calling that guy over there 'fat ass.'"
Whether you like it or not, people are sensitive about their religious beliefs. It is not something with which you can agree or disagree. So why not be respectful of others. Is that not "raw enough for you?"
And last time I checked, Tom was not poking fun of people over the phone for believing in, or not believing in, god. And last I checked, we were not currently having a dialogue designed to entertain. In other words, I think comparing what you are doing to what Tom does on a regular basis doesn't work.
-
Actually, what I'll probably do, in line with Smelodies' point, is pick and choose my occasions to speak diplomatically or bluntly about people's convictions and/or weight, and if I cross inappropriate lines it will be me who pays the price.
Obviously any comparison between me and Tom is very, very limited, but my point simply is that snark is pretty much a fact of life and I would expect anyone who was attracted to the Best Show in the first place to recognize that. Opinionated people say opinionated things.
-
"invisible superheroes who live in outer space"
That IS one of moi's favorite expressions for gods.
However, I can change.
Now, If I deal with a person that states, "God is everywhere," should I refer to god as,
"He who dwells within our turds," is that okay?
Huh, huh, is it?
Inside of a turd IS part of everywhere, ain't it?
I also say, Hay Zeus specific, “A perforated Hippie Hebrew on a stick,”
and for Satan, “A horned hobgoblin with a pointy gluteus maxims.”
Stay on groovin' safari,
:o Tor :o
-
There clearly is no God if Tor is back on the FOT board making everything ultimately about him and his lame third-rate Subgenius 'comedy'.
And it's 2011. Try to ease up on the craaaaazy colors and font sizes. Or I'll consider that strike three, strikes one and two being your inability to talk about anything other than your dusty agenda and strike two your repeated use of "moi" and "groovin' safari".
Tom.
-
Cool, I thought I was the only one who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
-
Cool, I thought I was the only one who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
I sympathize with Tor because I too used to not know how to use the Internet (this isn't passive aggressive because I'm going to tell him that I don't think he is good at using the Internet).
Dear Tor,
Just make a thread for your vids and post them there. Leave work at the office, know what I mean? Otherwise people are going to keep jumping all over you and you will do a disservice to your own point of view.
I'm on your side!
,
-KW
-
I guess that must be directed at me as much as anyone. I didn't say anyone is obligated to "like" anybody--as it happens, I do believe Hitchens is an amoral prick and don't like anything about him except his anti-religion writing. I simply find it strange and counter-productive how quick self-professed atheists are to disavow people working on what they say is their own side.
I have a brother, for instance, who is a very confirmed conservative, but a relatively civil and thoughtful one. He doesn't "like" Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly personally. But he is perfectly happy to have them out there doing what they do, because they move the parameters of acceptable debate in the direction he favors. That's how you prevail in the long run. That's why we've ended up with an entire Republican party that would have been dismissed as fringey kooks in 1965 and a Democratic party that's basically to the right of Nixon.
I think you mischaracterize Eagleton and Hedges. Eagleton is a believing Catholic and Hedges may have dropped out of divinity school but hasn't disavowed religion. I haven't read their critiques of Hitchens and wouldn't be equipped to evaluate them on theological grounds if I did--any more than I could evaluate the depth of Jeanne Dixon's astrological knowledge if she were to debate Penn Jillette on the topic. But I can say for sure that to discount Hitchen's arguments because of his unlikeability is the ultimate in ad hominem argument.
Fair enough, but to be clear, that wasn't my intention -- I was actually saying two different things. One, that Hitchens is a creep, and two, that I don't find his (or Dawkins') arguments on behalf of atheism very convincing. I also find straw man arguments (theirs and in general) far more problematic than ad hominem attacks, and perhaps was mistaken in mentioning the latter.
Also, where are you getting that Eagleton is a practicing Catholic? As far as I know he was part of the radical Catholic movement in the 60s but has since been very critical of the church. I could be wrong -- other than interviews and articles I've just read one Eagleton book, on Walter Benjamin (another religious Marxist, albeit a Jewish one). But by all indications he seems to be more of a lapsed Catholic than a practicing one.
I understand your frustration that "our side" (left-wing, atheist, whatever) seems much more fractious than the unified, disciplined "other side," but I think that's a misreading of the situation. There are really no such thing as "sides" in such a broad sense, and people who espouse liberal or anti-religious politics tend to also espouse free, critical thinking, which is frequently antithetical to loyalty to a "cause." And of course conservatives are often fractious and independent thinkers too, but "their" causes tend to be backed up by think tanks, lobbyists, PR firms, and corporate money, which gives the illusion of greater unity.
All that said, I find it hard to take seriously anyone who purports to be a representative of reason and truth, but reduces all religious thought -- which encompasses the vast majority of the thought in human history, including many of the ideas that most of us secularists take for granted -- as belief in "an invisible superhero in the sky."
Oh, and Fredericks, Jennifer Michael Hecht is my neighbor! I told her you were a fan. I'm not sure she'll be able to make out my explanation of who you are or how I know you, so maybe I'll just scan your trading card and send her that.
-
Why don't you point out where hitchens is making straw man arguments rather than just calling him a creep?
-
They're two separate assertions, as I said. I don't think Hitchens is a creep because he makes straw man arguments. I think Hitchens is a creep because I've spoken to at least 3-4 people who have experienced his creepy behavior firsthand, plus I find his Iraq war position (among some others) revolting and his moralizing tiresome, even when I agree with it (I largely agreed with his thesis on Kissinger in Harper's but could barely get through the thing).
Do we all have to endlessly justify why we don't like public figures now? I guess I'll start with Jeff Dunham.
As far as the straw man arguments go, I'm not going to spend all day refuting the arguments of someone I don't even take seriously. That way lies madness. But Eagleton does it well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/25/liberal-islam (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/25/liberal-islam)
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2085/tragic-hero-laurie-taylor-interviews-terry-eagleton (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2085/tragic-hero-laurie-taylor-interviews-terry-eagleton)
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/04/28/terry_eagleton/print.html (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/04/28/terry_eagleton/print.html)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching)
-
Fair enough. I'll read some of those links later in the weekend.
-
And, even though it probably doesn't even merit mention, I don't intend any criticism of any of the Hitchens fans here. People like what they like! Plenty of very smart (and very left-wing) friends of mine can't stand the work of Howard Zinn, and I love it (except for that one play he wrote).
One could also argue that Hitchens' personality has nothing to do with his thought -- and they'd pretty much be right. I'm reading James Salter's Examined Lives now (thanks, WFMU's Benjamen Walker) and most of the leading lights of Western thought were flaming assholes.
-
They're two separate assertions, as I said. I don't think Hitchens is a creep because he makes straw man arguments. I think Hitchens is a creep because I've spoken to at least 3-4 people who have experienced his creepy behavior firsthand, plus I find his Iraq war position (among some others) revolting and his moralizing tiresome, even when I agree with it (I largely agreed with his thesis on Kissinger in Harper's but could barely get through the thing).
Do we all have to endlessly justify why we don't like public figures now? I guess I'll start with Jeff Dunham.
As far as the straw man arguments go, I'm not going to spend all day refuting the arguments of someone I don't even take seriously. That way lies madness. But Eagleton does it well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/25/liberal-islam (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/25/liberal-islam)
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2085/tragic-hero-laurie-taylor-interviews-terry-eagleton (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2085/tragic-hero-laurie-taylor-interviews-terry-eagleton)
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/04/28/terry_eagleton/print.html (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2009/04/28/terry_eagleton/print.html)
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching)
Jason Grote you are my favorite today.
-
Since I'm being told it's impossible to take me seriously since I have deployed David Rees's "invisible superheroes" phrase--a phrase I would have thought rather self-evidently not deeply serious--I'm not sure whether to take the trouble of responding. But I keep hearing that Eagleton has "effectively" dispatched the arguments of Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al, and in the time I was willing to give those links (not an enormous amount, since "I'm not going to spend all day refuting the arguments of someone I don't even take seriously" resonates with me) I wasn't convinced.
Of them all, the only one that both comes directly from Eagleton and is centrally concerned with refuting atheism is the fourth, his review of Dawkins. I can't evaluate it because I haven't read Dawkins's book, but the substance seems to be that Dawkins can only come up with a degraded caricature of Christian theology to fight against, because he isn't familiar with the subtler reaches of its most sophisticated elaborations:
What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them?
<snark mode> I plead guilty. I haven't read them either. I guess I should just doubt my own experience and take the word of my intellectual betters that there's an airtight case to be made for the loving God who makes tsunamis just to remind his children that we have free will.</snark mode>
Anyway, I don't know anything about Dawkins. He doesn't sound like the sharpest knife in the drawer. I think I might know what Hitchens' response would be, but if I'm wrong, I'll put it forward as my own: Christian theologians have developed a magisterially sophisticated and even beautiful body of thought that deserves to be studied as literature and philosophy by those who find value in that kind of thing. Unfortunately, like other monotheisms, the doctrine that it elaborates has produced far too much cruelty, destruction, and ignorance to be worth continuing to maintain as a framework for human behavior, especially in the absence of any evidence that it actually refers to anything real.
Maybe I just haven't read enough Moltmann.
-
There clearly is no God if Tor is back on the FOT board making everything ultimately about him and his lame third-rate Subgenius 'comedy'.
And it's 2011. Try to ease up on the craaaaazy colors and font sizes. Or I'll consider that strike three, strikes one and two being your inability to talk about anything other than your dusty agenda and strike two your repeated use of "moi" and "groovin' safari".
Tom.
Awwwww, geeeeee, Tom, you’re just sore ‘cause moi got the best of you,
on-air, with that old “Two fan clubs” then the sound-effect bit
and your religious fanatic board members are only
livid from facts that they cannot reasonably deny.
BTW: There clearly are no worthwhile gods and/or devils if you clearly understand.
Hey! Wait a sec, if “third-rate” humor were the issue. . .wouldn’t you have about 97.13 strikes after every 100 TBSOWFMUs?
Oh, Red and Blue are craaaaazy?
Sorry, I didn’t realize you suffered from some sort of chromatically activated malady.
Say, why would you have “craaaaazy” font colors and sizes, you don’t like, @ your message board; you’re not a masochist. . .are you?
Much as Mr. Monk, perhaps you should seek professional assistance.
Please tell moi exactly, try to be vastly more objective and much less subjective, what me “. . .dusty agenda,” is sooooooo we both shall know thy feelings.
Stay on groovin’ safari,
:o Tor :o
Oh yes, and ultimately it’s all about. . . . .
The End's Ending (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8pdL0snjUs#)
-
You just bought yourself a one way ticket to Palookaville.
-
Oh, and Fredericks, Jennifer Michael Hecht is my neighbor! I told her you were a fan. I'm not sure she'll be able to make out my explanation of who you are or how I know you, so maybe I'll just scan your trading card and send her that.
She is so great. She won my heart on an episode of Point Of Inquiry. http://www.pointofinquiry.org/pz_myers_jennifer_michael_hecht_chris_mooney_new_atheism_or_accommodation/ (http://www.pointofinquiry.org/pz_myers_jennifer_michael_hecht_chris_mooney_new_atheism_or_accommodation/) (Many of the commenters don't care for her. But, that doesn't change the way I feel.)
I am enamored by her concept of Poetic Atheism.
You could direct her to my latest podcast in which I quote her.
I like how she chooses to focus on the magic that is real.
-
Ha! And I copyedited The End of the Soul. With great pleaure, I seem to remember.
-
I thought that Chocolate Thunder retired years ago.
-
Ha! And I copyedited The End of the Soul. With great pleaure, I seem to remember.
Jeez. Sarah, you are something else.
-
Heck, it was just woik. But it was fun talking about the freethinking anthropologists of France and the Society of Mutual Autopsy down at the bar that spring.
-
You won, Tor. In honor of your victory I have banned you from the site.
You are the worst of Earth.
Tom.
-
I would say that one Hitchens foible I agree with is that he is a name dropper and a gossiper in general. Hitch 22, good book besides, has a lot of that. But then you have to remember where his formative years were. Speaking of which, his latest is about Murdoch and News of the World: http://www.slate.com/id/2298936/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2298936/)
-
I thought that Chocolate Thunder retired years ago.
Ladies and gentlemen, CAR-LOS MEN-CI-AAAAAA!
http://friendsoftom.com/forum/index.php/topic,8097.msg178469.html#msg178469 (http://friendsoftom.com/forum/index.php/topic,8097.msg178469.html#msg178469)
How dare you?
-
Wasn't he commenting on yours?
-
Wasn't he commenting on yours?
I don't think so. Stancia knew what he was doing. Or he innocently missed the first page. Whatever.
-
Like Zizek, I'm practically Maoist in thinking that churches should be turned into grain silos or palaces of culture -- but also like Zizek, I like Christianity, particularly the Leninist part of it.
Synchronistically, I listened to a Zizek talk Sunday on the Intelligence Squared podcast. I like him too.
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/slavoj-zizek (http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/slavoj-zizek)
Not as much as Jennifer Michael Hecht though.
Fredericks, have you read her book "Doubt"? It's really great. It's by far the best book about religion I've ever read (not that I've read many).
The problem with Dawkins, in addition to his obvious recent jerkishness, is that in all of his books he gives the impression that natural selection equals evolution. Natural selection is just one mechanism of evolution.
-
Fredericks, have you read her book "Doubt"?
The problem with Dawkins, in addition to his obvious recent jerkishness, is that in all of his books he gives the impression that natural selection equals evolution. Natural selection is just one mechanism of evolution.
N.T.C.,
Doubt is on my list.
I recently read that only Christian fundamentalists and the God deniers are talking about a superhero who lives in outer space. Most people have a more nuanced interpretation of spirituality.
Christian fundamentalism- by that I mean the literal interpretation of the bible- is a relatively new phenomena that emerged only when science started making serious advancements and discoveries.
When Friedrich Nietzsche said God is dead he was talking about as a basis for morality and politics. No more aquatic tarts handing out swords. Not that the big guy in the sky croaked.
-
Hey, Fredericks. carlos men C.I.A.
Huh, huh?
-
Hey, Fredericks. carlos men C.I.A.
Huh, huh?
Jackal
-
Wasn't he commenting on yours?
I don't think so. Stancia knew what he was doing. Or he innocently missed the first page. Whatever.
Please accept my humble apology for failing to use the quote feature in that post, you munch.
-
Wasn't he commenting on yours?
I don't think so. Stancia knew what he was doing. Or he innocently missed the first page. Whatever.
Please accept my humble apology for failing to use the quote feature in that post, you munch.
I deliberately lost the ability to detect sarcasm years ago, so - thank you so much, Stanislaw!
-
Come on, guys this is good stuff:
Hate E-mails with Richard Dawkins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_ye8PS0KQc#ws)
-
Behold, Dawkins' successor has arrived.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-07-25-ricky1.jpg)
-
Oh, that's pathetic.
-
Behold, Dawkins' successor has arrived.
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-07-25-ricky1.jpg)
Spike!
-
Maher is the most relevant atheist comic going these days.
-
7-19-11 episode of Point Of Inguiry Rebecca Watson talks about the incident that brought forth this thread.
-
Gervais has lost a lot of weight, which makes his fat people jokes go over a bit better, but also makes them a good bit meaner.
-
I feel like I should finally pipe up and admit this thread title always makes me picture a cartoon Richard Dawkins caught up in a Scooby Doo mystery. Or maybe a Dukes of Hazard reboot with him and Hitchens (in healthier times of course).
-
Dawkins vs an idiot:
Bill O'Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins on 'The Magic of Reality' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgNFJEx3XGc#ws)
-
Dawkins vs an KING idiot:
Bill O'Reilly vs. Richard Dawkins on 'The Magic of Reality' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgNFJEx3XGc#ws)