Thought you might like this

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Thought you might like this

Author:

Ben Reid

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Mar 10, 2002

Comments:

In was looking through an atheist-theist debate club and one of the members posted a message that I thought summed up 90% of the atheist paradox very well. I think both Christians and atheists might like it. Here it is, copied and pasted:

More diaries by Ben Reid

	Harry Potter - What Does God Have to Say?
	April madness

And yes you do believe in magic, the supernatural. You believe that in a mechanistic universe your thoughts, rather than being a function of the inertia of the universe, somehow are reflective of it.

You believe that, somehow, logic exists as an objective reality (and that its laws are universal), rather than as a simple illusion allowing you to entertain the hallucination that your beliefs are 'true' rather than the result of chemical reactions in your brain.

You believe that somehow life is not deterministic, despite your repeated insistence that *everything* is explicable in terms of natural law. You believe that probability statements are somehow 'laws' that cannot be 'broken.'

You believe, despite the non-existence of a universal mind, that there are somehow 'standards' in epistemology and ethics, such that those who 'violate' such standards are wrong.

You believe that in a meaningless universe, rationality is superior to irrationality (an arbitrary value selection), that there is a distinction between 'good' and 'evil' such that Christians (because of the 'lies' they spread) are evil and atheists, who seek only the human 'good' are for that reason, 'good.'

You believe that, somehow, in a meaningless universe, there is some distinction to me made between 'truth' and 'falsity', which assumes that *meaning* exists.

You believe (and here I am speaking about inductive logic) that one can know something without having to know everything.

You believe in gods, despite living in a universe which, you say, does not admit of the possibility of gods existing. And you do believe in magic; it's just a different sort of magic. But it's just as supernatural as the magics you claim to abhor.

	Why? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
	by Right Hand Man on Sun Mar 10th, 2002 at 05:07:38 AM PST

	Why is this even necessary? If a person can't just read the bible, then look around them and see the glory of God for themselves, they are obviously mentally deficient. There has been far too much rabble roused regarding this topic. God exists. Read His book, look at all the stuff He made. Anyone who thinks that all of this just showed up by chance is not at all worthy of living among civilized people. Anyone who needs to read this diary entry to be convinced the God exists is too thick skulled to be of any importance. ------------------------- "Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

	Wrong angle on it (none / 0) (#3)
	by Ben Reid on Sun Mar 10th, 2002 at 03:25:18 PM PST

	Why is this even necessary? My aim wasn't to convince anyone that God exists, no-one can be convinced against their own will, it was simply to emphasise that people who reject/deny God also have their own gods or supernatural element that they believe in, though they may not admit it. If a person can't just read the bible, then look around them and see the glory of God for themselves, they are obviously mentally deficient Telling someone they are mentally deficient because they cannot see the glory of God or haven't read the bible is the wrong approach my friend. You are lowering yourself down to the atheists game where intellect becomes a god on its own. I have met many apparently well thought out and well researched people who have decided to accept/deny God. I respect them for at least searching and working hard for their beliefs. Read His book, look at all the stuff He made Once you put your faith in God these things are important and indeed glorify God, but these alone do not convince one of God. For starters, some people have never had access to the bible. Anyone who needs to read this diary entry to be convinced the God exists is too thick skulled to be of any importance. Please, if you are not going to approach Christianity from a positive viewpoint, don't turn people away from it by ridiculing them.

	Ben, (none / 0) (#18)
	by derek3000 on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 10:12:36 AM PST

	You seem like a pretty cool guy. Good to have you around. ---------------- "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

	actually it was the bible made me non-christian (none / 0) (#6)
	by PotatoError on Mon Mar 11th, 2002 at 04:51:02 PM PST

	Its just full of inconsistancies, contradictions and self-hype. Also many of the books are written in different styles - surely the word of God would be clear and consise - not causing confusion. So obviously written by a human. Anyway they had the imagination of a over-excited child when it came to revelations. Sure that could happen with all the different plagues and monsters and stuff but then it said that after all that bad stuff, everyone would still refuse to worship god. Such a bad thing to write - I know for fact that just about everyone would convert to religion if God was proved true..and if the apocalypse happened then he would be proved true. So why does the bible make such a big mistake? work of human i think. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	straw man (none / 0) (#7)
	by nathan on Mon Mar 11th, 2002 at 05:00:31 PM PST

	The Bible was certainly written by human beings. That is not in contention. As for its being inspired by God, which is the real issue, I don't see that as being particularly easy to disprove. Did you read the New Testament for its content, or to make fun of it? For some great advice on how to live your life, let me recommend some stuff: II Corinthians 4:3-4, I John 2:3-6, 15-17, Galatians 4:8, II Peter 2:2, Philippians 4:4-9. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	no (none / 0) (#8)
	by PotatoError on Mon Mar 11th, 2002 at 09:00:09 PM PST

	no, I honestly read revelations for some sort of revelation. At the time I figured that so many people believed in this book that it might be true...i thought that because revelations is supposed to explain the end of the world that it would be useful to read to see if the book was credible or not. At the time I didnt realise that only a third of the world are christians - a fact which made me doubt..i mean if in group of 9 people only 3 said it was right and 6 said it wasnt then id be inclined ot believe the 6. Anyway I read revelations with an open mind..if it had simply said the earth would be destroyed by earthquakes or a meteor or another flood then I would have believed it a lot more. First line I read mentioned that apocalypse would happen soon and that the time was at hand. This would rather imply a far shorter ammount of time than between the resurrection of Jesus and the creation of the book. I mean, if the book was compiled just over 100 years after the resurrection of Jesus then the meaning of the word "soon" should have meant far less than 2000 years. Heh what if there is going to be no apocalypse? What if God just lied about it in order to keep us on our toes? Why doesnt God just kill the bad people and send the Good people straight to heaven and destroy the universe? Why bother with all the horses and monsters? "6:13 The stars of the sky fell to the earth, like a fig tree dropping its unripe figs when it is shaken by a great wind." Now, why would God make all the stars rush at the earth while shrinking so that it looks like they are little specs falling to Earth? Because as we know something as big as a star is going to burn the earth to pieces before it even gets near it...on that matter why doesnt God just throw Earth into the Sun? Who knows. "6:14 The sky was removed like a scroll when it is rolled up. Every mountain and island were moved out of their places." If he saw the stars fall to earth then how could he see the sky roll up? You can only see the stars at night - and at night you cant see the sky. "Don't harm the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, until we have sealed the bondservants of our God on their foreheads!" Why couldnt God kill everyone THEN sort them out into good and bad? "8:12 The fourth angel sounded, and one third of the sun was struck, and one third of the moon, and one third of the stars; so that one third of them would be darkened, and the day wouldn't shine for one third of it, and the night in the same way." I thought all the stars had already been dealt with earlier when they all fell to Earth. But now it seems they've been replaced for theatrical amusement. But in the general scheme of things it some of it sounds like the description of a Nuclear attack. You have the stars striking earth as a metaphor for all the warheads hitting earth. Then all the thunder and earthquakes. Hail and Fire mixed with blood? One third of the earth burnt? One third of trees burnt up? ALl green grass burnt up? Sounds right to describe the blast. Then we have "so that one third of them would be darkened, and the day wouldn't shine for one third of it, and the night in the same way." "The sun and the air were darkened because of the smoke from the pit." That would be the debris blocking the atmosphere and sunlight. Nuclear winter. So far so good. "Then out of the smoke came forth locusts on the earth, and power was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have power." Nuclear debris? "9:5 They were given power not to kill them, but to torment them for five months. Their torment was like the torment of a scorpion, when it strikes a person." radiation sickness? Although this surely would kill people too. But maybe nukes will be made differently when it happens - or maybe we are talking about the next line of mass destructive weapon - anti-matter bombs. "In those days people will seek death, and will in no way find it. They will desire to die, and death will flee from them." Quite. Then it goes a bit pear shaped again. Pity. Its as if it isnt content with the world being destroyed once and calls everyone back for a second try - this time including dragons, satan, fireballs and mass sky battles. This is pure drama. "He causes all, the small and the great, the rich and the poor, and the free and the slave, to be given marks on their right hands, or on their foreheads;" Now this will never happen - it will never be allowed to happen because it will piss so many people off that have read this. I myself wouldnt allow it to happen even though I dont believe in God - I still rather that noone start creating the beginning of the apocalypse. Therefore this propesy destroys itself. You've heard of self-fufilling profesy - this is a self-destroying one. "People were scorched with great heat, and people blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues. They didn't repent and give him glory." lol noone in their right mind would blaspeme God if they knew he existed and was throwing fire at them. Anyway thats just my take on it. Im not too intelligent in this subject so see my comments more as humor than arguments. If this turned into a serious debate non of my arguments would stand because I obviously cant say that revelations is wrong because its illogical - afterall who says God has to be logical? <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Don't start with Revelations (none / 0) (#11)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 04:24:11 AM PST

	Revelations is one of the most complex, symbolic books in the Bible. It draws on so many thematic and structural parallels from the Old Testament that you almost need to read the entire OT before even considering to study Revelation to any level of depth. You also need to do a pretty thorough exegesis of Revelation and the OT to understand some of the intent and meaning behind the language used. That's why nearly every religion has a different interpretation of Revelation, some of them directly opposed. I'm currently going through a set of tapes on Revelations from a guy who has studied it for 20 years (Dr Jon Paulien) and the tapes go for 45 hours, with an analysis of every single verse of Revelation! It's amazing stuff but not something you want to spend the majority of your time studying or you will go crazy -- literally. If you truly want to learn about Christianity, there's no better place to start than with the gospels, particularly the gospel of John, and Romans. Romans is my favourite book of the Bible, behind Psalms and the 1,2 Corinthians. At the time I didnt realise that only a third of the world are christians - a fact which made me doubt..i mean if in group of 9 people only 3 said it was right and 6 said it wasnt then id be inclined ot believe the 6. I'd highly doubt that a third of the world are Christians (yes I've googled it and seen some stats), I think it would be a lot less than that. And it isn't a case of 3 being right and 6 being wrong because the 6 aren't all in agreement with each other, then again, neither are the 3. I believe God reveals himself to everyone (see Romans 1:20, as I mentioned in another post in this diary) and yes I believe that there will be Hindus, Muslims, you name it in the kingdom of God. I believe that God judges people according to the light they are shown, of course, I have no way of understanding the mind of God. First line I read mentioned that apocalypse would happen soon and that the time was at hand. This would rather imply a far shorter amount of time than between the resurrection of Jesus and the creation of the book. I believe you are referring to Revelations 1:3 "Blessed is the one who reads the words of prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near". There are many ways to interpret "the time is near": 1) That John is urging people to be ready at all times for the Last Judgement and the establishment of God's kingdom. We do not know that these when these events will occur, but we must always be prepared. They will happen quickly, and there will be no second chance to change sides. 2) Jesus had said about the end times, "For many will come in my name, claiming, "I am the Christ," and will deceive many. You will hear wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase in wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:5-14) So Jesus gave many signs of the end of time - antichrists, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecution of Christians, false prophets, the gospel being preached to the whole world. Guess what? All these things had happened in the time John was alive (I can explain if you like)! so of course he was thinking that the time was near. Guess what? All these things, apart from the spreading of the gospel to the whole world, are happening today. I believe that when we see the gospel goes to the whole world, then the time is near, it could be in our lifetime, but of course I could be wrong, no-one knows the time nor the day. 3) 2000 or even 2.5 million years are an insignificant period of time to an infinite God, so from the perspective of God, the time is near. Why doesnt God just kill the bad people and send the Good people straight to heaven and destroy the universe? Why bother with all the horses and monsters? Who are these "bad people"? What if a "bad" person is capable of changing and accepting God into their life? Shouldn't they be given that chance? I believe there will come a time where everyone will have to make a definitive choice - accept or reject the gospel (that goes to the world). There will be no sitting on the fence - not that there is any such thing as sitting on the fence now. As for the horses and the monsters, it would take far too long to explain, it is symbolic, let's just say that they are not literal horses and monsters being referred to. "6:13 The stars of the sky fell to the earth, like a fig tree dropping its unripe figs when it is shaken by a great wind." Now, why would God make all the stars rush at the earth while shrinking so that it looks like they are little specs falling to Earth? Because as we know something as big as a star is going to burn the earth to pieces before it even gets near it...on that matter why doesnt God just throw Earth into the Sun? Who knows. Again, one word: symbolic. You problem is that you are taking Revelation literally. Same with your points on 6:14, 8:12 and 9:5. I would love to explain the meaning behind these verses but I just don't have the time. I can direct you to a couple of good links that attempt to explain the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. "He causes all, the small and the great, the rich and the poor, and the free and the slave, to be given marks on their right hands, or on their foreheads;" Do you really think it will be a literal mark of the beast that people have? Do you really think that people are going to have 666 engraved on their heads or foreheads? I don't think so. The mark of the beast is symbolic, symbolic of those who have chosen the Beast (satan) as their master. Based on my study, the forehead represents the mind. It means those who accept the teachings in following the Beast. To receive the mark in the right hand means to give cooperation. Again, I don't have the time to give an adequate explanation of the mark of the Beast. lol noone in their right mind would blaspeme God if they knew he existed and was throwing fire at them. But if you knew that God existed and was "throwing fire at you", if God appeared to the whole world every day, if God created a huge 1000 foot fiery mark in the night sky just to really, really confirm to you that He existed, would you truly have free will? Or would you be a mindless robot, worshipping God out of terror, not love? Free will is the greatest gift God has given us and it is with that free will we can accept or reject God. Anyway thats just my take on it. Im not too intelligent in this subject so see my comments more as humor than arguments. Revelation is heavy going man. You don't just dive into Revelation and start coming up with ideas. You have to approach Revelation the right way or you will end up with wacky ideas about it like David Koresh did.

	I'll bite. (none / 0) (#12)
	by because it isnt on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 04:28:49 AM PST

	Revelation is heavy going man. You don't just dive into Revelation and start coming up with ideas. You have to approach Revelation the right way or you will end up with wacky ideas about it like David Koresh did. I'd like to know the right way to approach the whole "only male virgins are going to Heaven" thing. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Well (none / 0) (#13)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 05:15:50 AM PST

	I assume you're referring to Revelation 14:1-5, specifically verse 4, where it talks about the 144,000 that "did not defile themselves with women." The number 144,000 is not literal (I won't go into that here) and neither is the "male virgin" idea. In the OT, idolatry was often portrayed as spiritual adultery (see the book of Hosea). Their purity is best understood symbolically, meaning they are free from involvement with the pagan world system. To quote a more detailed explanation from here: "A woman is in Scripture the symbol of a church, a virtuous woman representing a pure church, a corrupt woman, an apostate church. It is, then, a characteristic of this company that at the time of their deliverance they are not defiled with the fallen churches of the land, nor do they have any connection with them. Yet we are not understand that they never had any connection with these churches, for it is only at a certain time that people become defiled by them. In Revelation 18: 4 we find a call issued to the people of God while they are still in Babylon, to come out lest they become partakers of her sins. Heeding that call, and leaving her connection, they escape the defilement of her sins. So of the 144,000: though some of them may have once had a connection with corrupt churches, they sever that connection with corrupt churches, they sever that connection when it would become sin to retain it longer." I don't want to start a "let's explain Revelation" thread, it's way too involved to discuss via a weblog. Let's just say that taking it Revelation literally is very dangerous indeed.

	The Bible isn't the "word of God". (none / 0) (#9)
	by tkatchev on Mon Mar 11th, 2002 at 10:22:09 PM PST

	You're thinking of the Qur'an here. The Bible was written by (mostly) normal human beings for normal human beings. "Divinely inspired" doesn't mean that God was whispering in their ear when it was written -- it just means that it was written with Christian intent. You shouldn't expect to find all the answers in the Bible -- the Bible is a very useful book, but it's still only a book. Christianity is much more than just the Bible. (Remember, "there is no salvation outside the Church", etc.) -- Peace and much love...

	Say what? (none / 0) (#10)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 02:09:28 AM PST

	Remember, "there is no salvation outside the Church" What about the poor Chinese rice farmer who has never met a Christian in his life? What about the starving person in a third world country who has never had access to a Bible let alone known about "the Church"? No salvation for them? I guess it depends on how you define "the Church" (you're an Orthodox Christian right?) but to me salvation comes purely through Jesus Christ, not any specific religion, and "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20) This implies that God has revealed Himself to all people and given everyone the chance of salvation, not just those in "the Church."

	It all depends. (none / 0) (#20)
	by tkatchev on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 11:36:39 AM PST

	You see, the poor rice farmer in China doesn't know anything about Christ and the chance at salvation that he's missing -- so therefore, he can't really be held to the same standards as us. Remember that some of the ancient greeks were called "Christians before Christ", implying that they might be saved along with true Christ. Also remember that we cannot be sure about anyone's salvation, that is something that only God can know, after all. It might so happen that the poor rice farmer in China will be saved, while someone who is a devout Christian might not be. We can never know. The fact of the matter is, you cannot reject Christ's church without rejecting Christ himself in the process. That is why Christians call the Church "the body of Christ", implying that his work lives on in all members of his Church. Saying that you "love Christ" even though you "hate the Church" is ridiculous -- it's analogous to sombody who says that he "loves America" even though he "hates Americans". -- Peace and much love...

	Christ and the Church (none / 0) (#22)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 02:47:06 PM PST

	Saying that you "love Christ" even though you "hate the Church" is ridiculous -- it's analogous to sombody who says that he "loves America" even though he "hates Americans". It seems that you and Mr. Reid are debating one of the fundamental issues between Orthodoxy/Catholicism and Protestantism. For many Protestants, loving "the Church" is a very distant second to, and indeed may have nothing to do with, loving Christ. Many evangelical Protestants I know talk specifically about their "personal relationship with God and Christ" as the center of their lives, and this is often encouraged by Protestant clergy. Why is this? Does it really date back to Luther or is there a whole slew of historical and cultural detritus as well? (I'm just now really learning about this stuff, so apologies if I get it wrong or unintentionally insult someone.)

	Good questions (none / 0) (#26)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 05:05:45 PM PST

	Orthodox Christianity is vastly different to Orthodox Catholicism (use of the word orthodox makes it easy to get confused) -- Orthodox Christianity is really neither Catholic or Protestant. See here for some straight answers on Orthodox Christianity if you like and here is an article on the difference between Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. I no expert on this, I've only just recently become a committed Christian myself. Though I was brought up in a Christian environment I wanted nothing to do with it during the last 4 or 5 years. I had seen too many hypocritical Christians and based my opinion of Christianity on that rather than on Jesus Christ. Tkatchev can probably comment on the historical and cultural aspects much better than I. I prefer not to comment on history unless I have a well informed opinion. As for your key question, yes, I believe that a personal relationship with God is the most important thing. (Quoting from a post I did a few days ago) For me, the goal of Christianity is NOT to get into heaven, the ultimate theme park. The goal of Christianity is to have an intimate relationship with our Creator. There is peace and forgiveness that comes with a relationship with God. However, when you view the Church as being "the body of Christ" or the people of Christ, then this also implies that you love the Church. It doesn't really make sense otherwise. For what it is worth, though I like to consider myself a non-denominational Christian, I worship at a Seventh Day Adventist church. I probably haven't answered your questions properly, so sorry about that.

	Thanks (none / 0) (#25)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 04:16:46 PM PST

	For being more precise in your standpoint. I believe God judges a person according to the light they are shown, so I agree with you on the rice farmer. It also makes it easier to approach questions like "Can a baby that dies at birth, or before it knows how to choose right from wrong, obtain salvation?" It just wasn't clear where you stood based on your last post. The key point is the definition of the church as "the body of Christ" NOT a particular type of religious denomincation. Way too many Christians (with Catholics numero uno) think joining their denomination is the only way to salvation. I am strongly against that idea. I was not really implying that one can reject Christ's church and love Christ, based on the above, I agree that it does not make sense.

	thanks! (none / 0) (#2)
	by nathan on Sun Mar 10th, 2002 at 01:11:52 PM PST

	This is a very eloquent statement of what I've been trying to say for quite a while. It's good to see it so well-put. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	yes (none / 0) (#4)
	by Ben Reid on Sun Mar 10th, 2002 at 03:48:13 PM PST

	I struggle with eloquence. I have many thoughts in my head that I just cannot seem to map properly to words. That's why I am so thankful for those writers who can articulate what I think and feel. Reading Pensees was like that for me. The whole time it was like, "That's just what I've been feeling but couldn't put into words!" :)

	You're not the only one. (none / 0) (#19)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 10:17:28 AM PST

	But sometimes it seems words won't really do justice to the thoughts in your head, don't you think?

	Re: (none / 0) (#23)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 03:30:49 PM PST

	Yes ... I agree, some thoughts just can't be translated to words without losing their meaning or effect in some way. I often wish someone would come up with an invention that automagically comes up with beautiful, concise words to describe your thoughts without you lifting a finger. Then I wouldn't get so frustrated all the time! :) You good at inventions?

	No. (none / 0) (#29)
	by hauntedattics on Thu Mar 14th, 2002 at 06:33:51 AM PST

	The only thing I am even remotely good at inventing is new words and pathetic, strangulated sounds to attempt to describe what I'm feeling. It's a vicious circle. But maybe better that way, no?

	very, very interesting. (none / 0) (#5)
	by osm on Mon Mar 11th, 2002 at 06:31:54 AM PST

	Oh, dear. (none / 0) (#14)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 08:38:42 AM PST

	Look, this is all very well and good, but it is a bit insulting. I've said over and over again that an honest atheist needs to take a few things on faith. But I'm afraid that having faith does not require me to have faith in God. Or gods. The god thing just sort of gets tacked on to the end of the argument there, without any sort of paste or goo to stick it to the long list of beliefs that an atheist might hold. Of course I have beliefs. I even refer to some of them using the word "faith." Some of them are patently irrational. I agree with a few of the notions listed in the tirade, but certainly not all of them. And I don't believe in God. Sorry. Then again, I don't think christians are stupid. A fair number of them are even smarter than me, I'm sure. I like discussing things like self and soul and the Problem of Evil with christians. They're used to that sort of stuff. Dogmatic Atheists (who are no better than dogmatic theists) assume that all those questions have been answered, pretty much, so they get nervous if you bring them up. Just as there are smart, tolerant Christians, so too are there decent, tolerant atheists. You won't find them on the usual geek web-boards, but there are a few of us here, trying to ignore the bleating idiots around us who call themselves atheists and evangelise Linux and don't understand the first thing about Philosophy. But you don't have to listen to me. I'm not sure I exist, after all. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	you're right (none / 0) (#15)
	by nathan on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 09:35:52 AM PST

	The article would be closer to the mark if it noted that it applies to the kind of positivistic, scientific-materialist atheism of which there are a number of exponents here. It's a matter of the net being cast a little too wide. While I'm happy to discuss philosophical issues with the philosophically sophisticated, I am a little doubtful about formal philosophy being necessary to deep thought about the human condition. I've found that lots of inarticulate people have much richer inner lives than the glib, shallow careerist sorts one's all too likely to meet in academic circles. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Fair enough. (none / 0) (#27)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 06:46:07 PM PST

	I really only had that guy in mind. It's not so much ignorance of Philosophy that gets me as refusal to consider it, or a priori rejection of its findings. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	the problem with philosophy... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
	by PotatoError on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 09:35:56 AM PST

	"but there are a few of us here, trying to ignore the bleating idiots around us who call themselves atheists and evangelise Linux and don't understand the first thing about Philosophy." So understanding Philosophy is important? Look, its not chemistry or maths - philosophy is a totally man made thing. I might not know the names of certain philosophers and what they have said but that doesnt mean I dont know of some of the things they said. Take this for example: a friend of mine is doing socialology and she had to do some stuff on philosophy about Meta-Ethics. Of course I had no idea what meta-ethics was. But once she had explained it to me I realised that I had already considered that stuff years before in my own time. I might not know the established name for it and all the phrases that went with it but I had thought about it just as deeply as her book had. So arguably someone could claim I knew nothing about "meta-ethics" because I had never studied it and therefore told me that I wasnt allowed to talk about it. But I do know stuff about it because the nature of philosophy allows people to realise it in their own time without a tutor. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	quite so, old bean (none / 0) (#17)
	by nathan on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 09:44:14 AM PST

	the nature of philosophy allows people to realise it in their own time without a tutor As is the case with math. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	yea (none / 0) (#21)
	by PotatoError on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 11:50:14 AM PST

	you're right. my mistake. <<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

	Slight Problem w/ One Assumption (none / 0) (#28)
	by gzt on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 07:00:56 PM PST

	<<So understanding Philosophy is important? Look, its not chemistry or maths - philosophy is a totally man made thing. I might not know the names of certain philosophers and what they have said but that doesnt mean I dont know of some of the things they said. >> Ah! But you assume chemistry and math are not! Indeed, if you had ever read a book on the philosophy of science, you would know this is not a trivial assertion. The article we are all responding to (if I recall correctly) sort of addresses this issue. Oh, I jumped on that one 'cause it was obvious to me. The second assumption that gives this argument trouble is the assumption that philosophy is totally man-made. Cheers, Geoff

	Well, this wasn't really intended for you then (none / 0) (#24)
	by Ben Reid on Tue Mar 12th, 2002 at 03:57:33 PM PST

	It was not meant to be insulting, I guess I quoted it out of context. It was targeted more at what I call the propaganda atheists, who blurt out all kinds of humanistic, materialistic stuff, boasting that no-one need have belief or faith in anything they cannot "prove" because rationality and logic is god. They don't actually comprehend what they are saying at all, they just regurgitate the same stuff over and over again (e.g. Invisible Pink Unicorns). As I mentioned in a post above, this post wasn't meant to convince you of God, you will never (and shouldn't ever) be convinced of anything against your will. It was meant to point out that everyone puts their trust or faith in some kind of supernatural element. I'm glad you are honest enough to concede on that point. Just as there are smart, tolerant Christians, so too are there decent, tolerant atheists. You won't find them on the usual geek web-boards, but there are a few of us here, trying to ignore the bleating idiots around us who call themselves atheists and evangelise Linux and don't understand the first thing about Philosophy. Once again, I totally agree. Ignorance and idiocy is not the sole domain of atheism or Christianity. It is important to base your faith on something that you personally have decided, not on what a human individual or group has decided or wants you to decide -- eventually an individual or group will disappoint you in some way and then your whole faith will be brought into question.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.