The Warfare Is Mental

Religion Does Not Entail Misogyny

July 4, 2009

So, I was about sit down and write with a premeditated topic in mind: last week's sentiments on "evidence for God" as discussed last week at SI's. Problem was, I stopped by DaylightAtheism first, where I found the following interesting hypothesis: an inversely proportional relationship between religiosity and misogyny exists – at least – so suggests guest writer Sarah Braasch in her second essay there. I would've left it well alone, but she implied some things about San Francisco that I want to challenge from personal experience, and I feel any San Franciscan in their right mind would have to agree.

If you don't want to read her post first, it's basically a story about how some sailors took her on a cruise through the Neopolitan prostitution subculture, oddly juxtaposed against the religious beast that is Roman Catholicism. As I said, most of her post was easy to sympathize with. Sure, the moral indifference to the victims of prostitution she describes is deeply troubling, especially considering its close proximity to what is perhaps the world's leading religious superpower. Atheists aren't the only ones noting that the abject conditions of humanity ironically persist whether a culture is predominantly religious or not. Problem is, she starts to jump the gun and get a little bit preachy for atheism right about here if you ask me:

How Skateboarding Helped My Intelligence

June 27, 2009

This post was originally going to be titled "How Skateboarding Helped My Education," but by the end hopefully you'll see why education was swapped for intelligence. Though related, the two are not the same thing.

One way people learn things is by observation, which humans have been using to test claims long before science arrived on the scene. Science and its tools merely extend or accentuate our observational abilities, with the added bonus of providing a somewhat reliable filter for false claims. How does this relate to skateboarding?

Power Commenters On DD’s (So-Called) Evidence Against Christianity

June 22, 2009

Here are a few previews from the initial dialog between myself, Lifeguard, MS Quixote and Dominic Saltarelli, continued from here. Brad is currently absent:

…I was thinking more along the lines of there being certain elements in the GH that are decidedly non-Biblical, rather than simply a reduced set of Biblical attributes.(Dominic Saltarelli)

I think that DD could have made that distinction a little clearer…

…it appears DD desired to set a baseline hypothesis without reference to Christianity in order to construct an analytic framework from which to ultimately analyze the claims of Christianity… the GH, as proposed, does not represent a baseline common to all Christian faiths as is necessary to critique Christianity as a whole. (MS Quixote)

Although by no means do I imply my Power Commenters agree with me in full (actually, Quixote does), we can still clearly see that it's not exactly the same story as over at DD's, right?

Respect, Or Coddling? Issues, Or Personalities?

June 21, 2009

Before we begin looking at the MGH and Genesis next week, I'd like to address a lingering issue that I'll need closure on before I can proceed: when his guests first began their assault on my character a few months back, DD seemed to support my complaints, and said to his guests:

It’s not “respectful” to treat people like spoiled children who can’t be trusted to acknowledge differing ideas without throwing a tantrum. Nor is it respectful to assume that believers are constitutionally incapable of handling the truth.

It is disrespectful to make unsupported accusations against people, e.g. by suggesting that their views are caused by an intrinsically corrupt and immoral nature. I have to say, though, that in my experience atheists like Dawkins are far less likely to make such accusations than to be the target of them. And while it may be tempting at times to think that “the other guy” is arguing out of some personal character flaw rather than a sincere desire to acknowledge the truth, I still think it’s better to debate respectfully, which (as Daylight Atheism points out) means presenting your case honestly, openly, and with a view to the facts. (DD, March 9, 2009, bold mine)

I'd say that's quite interesting in light of some of DD's more recent comments…!

The Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis: An Introduction

June 19, 2009

The basic concept behind the Masoretic-Greek Hypothesis (hereafter MGH) could be summarized as going to the source. Let's face it: the Christianity that many believers argue is indeed a moving target. Although I think it's an intellectual cop-out, I sympathize with atheists and unbelieving skeptics when they accuse believers of trotting out Courtier's Replies. Who wants to get bogged down trying to harmonize all the differing opinions of mainline religions and lesser sects, each of whom claim to be eating from the same salad bar called the Bible? Certainly not me. On the other hand, I sympathize with believers when they accuse atheists and unbelieving skeptics of gross negligence in their characterizations of religion.

More Responses To DD & Co.

June 18, 2009

As stated earlier today, I'm now responding to DD and company here to thwart DD's perceptions of my personality and hopefully force a return to the issues. Remember, what better way to disable your accuser than to steal his bullets, right? Refusing to comment there should swiftly undermine DD's whining about me being an "infiltrator", "troll", "heckler", "loser", etc. I can't fairly be called any of that if I cease all rapport on DD's blog, and once his bullets have been stolen and his emotions return to a steady equilibrium, once he's exhausted and done contradicting himself by addressing his perception of my personality, I'm hoping DD will return to the issues.

I encourage anyone and especially TWIM's Power Commenters to butt in here. I'm especially wondering who agrees with me that DD's clarion calls for vigilance on addressing issues vs. personalities and not feeding trolls seems contradictory juxtapozed against The Heckler's Defense which is effectively tantamount to armchair psychoanalysis in a troll trough. I'm also especially wondering who feels the Bible's claim that humans cannot see God the Father and live effectively challenges DD's claims that God should be right here, right now, in person.

Is This Conducive To The Pursuit Of Truth?

I was still waiting for the last Power Commenter to respond to Pt. 3 in my response to DD's so-called Evidence Against Christianity when, after a most exuberant and joyous night out enjoying life with my friends (yes, some people actually like me, no I don't pay them, no I don't mean MySpace friends and no, I'm not referring to prostitutes) I hopped online to find 631 very flattering words titled The Heckler's Defense which – like The Loser's Compromise – I fully expect DD to deny are about personalities.

I decided not to respond on DD's blog for a few reasons. Although I disagree that I'm a troll, and I feel that my arguments at EvangelicalRealism are both well-reasoned and made in good-faith, some who disagree are likely to see anything I say as further evidence that I'm indeed a troll. Like a shark to blood, I can sense that DD's just about to his breaking point, and although getting banned from atheist blogs is always flattering, it's also always annoying because it's honestly never my goal – my real goal is the pursuit of truth which entails either emendation or procuring agreement from reasonable individuals that my opponent's argument is not cogent as formed. I hope our new Power Commenting experiment can offer something standard threads seem to have difficulty delivering. At the very least, I can proceed with confidence my Power Commenters won't call each other "mealy-mouthed pricks" or "intellectual cowards," and that they're committed to issues as opposed to personalities. That can't be a bad place to start, right?

You Can Lead Atheists To Water, But You Can’t Make Them Think

June 16, 2009

*Comments are closed on this post because it was moved here.

For the past weeks, I've foregone Rebutting Atheist Universe to debate Deacon Duncan (DD) from EvangelicalRealism over his series, which for some still-undisclosed reason he's titled Evidence Against Christianity. It was bad enough when DD gave Dominic Saltarelli (not arguing as a believer) credit for making the exact same argument three people (all arguing as believers, incidentally) made in the first two weeks of the discussion. It was bad enough when DD denied that his GH was Christianity, yet absolutely refuses to this date to explain why it consists of distinctly Christian pre-conceptions about God. It was bad enough when DD claimed that all people who apply the tools of reason consistently and without bias in biblical exegesis are skeptics. It's bad enough that many of DD's commenters are so on the man's nuts that they can't see clearly and end up focusing near-exclusively on me. It was bad enough when DD eschewed my invitation to one-on-one, real-time debate.

It was bad enough when DD crafted an entire sub-series titled The Loser's Compromise in direct response to his perceptions of my arguments, then denied that the posts were aimed at me. Now, folks – as if it wasn't bad enough already, as if it could get any worse – DD's latest "argument" has left me truly baffled.

On Beliefs & Justification

June 15, 2009

I was skating this morning when I encountered a most interesting situation that reminded me of an online discussion at a certain blog I visit.

A woman was walking west on the sidewalk along 16th Street's westbound lane, as I was skateboarding east (approaching her) also in the westbound lane. A few steps in front of the woman and just to her right sits a pad of concrete that I occasionally like to "ollie" up on and off while in transit. It's fun! However, the woman did not know that I occasionally do this. So, when I ollied onto the sidewalk headed for the concrete pad, she flinched and tried to get out of my way, as she obviously thought I was going to run into her.

A Question For Any Lawyers Out There

June 10, 2009

Hi all, sorry for the decline in posts, but I’m effectively nauseated by (a)theism discussions right now, and I still want to debate computers, if nothing else, simply because they don’t get butthurt and ~~call~~ imply that people are losers prematurely.

So, a quick question: In some (all?) states, when two people commit a violent felony and one of them gets killed, by what logic is it fair to charge one criminal for the murder of another?

This has never made a lick of sense to me. The way I see it, if Drake and Tubbs decide to rob a store, and that store owner kills Drake – how is it ethical to prosecute Tubbs for murder? Am I missing something here? It sure feels like it.

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →