Tweet
I'll recommend you this book Lincoln, written by a true atheist:
-
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence) -
the religion is evil? now, Giancarlo, if you reject religionism, as you call it, what right do you have to call anything evil? evil denotes moral absolutes made possible only through belief in religion...
and can we get back on topic? no one has explained to me the distinction between creator and created that makes criticism of the created legit but not criticism of the creator (though, as a i said, criticis criticize the artist as well as the work, right?)"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben KenobiComment
-
So you didn't like the book?Comment
-
the religion is evil? now, Giancarlo, if you reject religionism, as you call it, what right do you have to call anything evil? evil denotes moral absolutes made possible only through belief in religion...
not so.Comment
-
explain"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben KenobiComment
-
Religion is just an evil force in this world that causes a lot of mayhem and destruction. People have died because of the twisted goals of christians. When I hear about christian missionaries getting killed in South America I don't care.. it isn't their culture to be messing around with. Additionally, I can have morals and not be brainwashed by religion. My morals are existent and I have a right to call it evil. Evil has been around long before religion.Originally posted by Albert Speer
the religion is evil? now, Giancarlo, if you reject religionism, as you call it, what right do you have to call anything evil? evil denotes moral absolutes made possible only through belief in religion...
and can we get back on topic? no one has explained to me the distinction between creator and created that makes criticism of the created legit but not criticism of the creator (though, as a i said, criticis criticize the artist as well as the work, right?)
Lincoln, the book is just wrong. In its name at any rate. I suggest reading the book I recommended.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
can someone for god's sake explain to me what is wrong with ad hominems?
You shouldnt consider the source of the information, only the information itself. Let it be proven or disproven based on its merits.
But why? Are not the artist and the art inter-connected, as in the adage, "the art praises the artist"? Hiedegger's analysis of art can also apply to beliefs, etc. There are three aspects of concern... the creator, the created, and the thing; that which, in a way, sparked the creation. The created is the thing, or the interpretation of the thing, through the perspective of the creator.
Therefore, according to Hiedegger (who makes sense to me so why not you?), there is an inter-connection between the artist and the art; a connection made possible through the motivating 'thing'.
To transpose this into discussions, you are the artist who creates the art of a reasoned debate, which is but your, the creator's, reflection of the motivating thing. The created is of the creator and of the thing. Therefore, bypassing the created and attacking the creator and the motivational thing is legitimate. In fact, it makes more sense to attack the creator or the thing rather than the created, as attempting to disprove the created does not get you into the heart of the issue... as the art itself is but a continuation or extension, so to speak, of the artist and the motivational thing, reasoned arguements are only the tip of the iceberg in a way... disproving them does not change the motivations for their creation.
also, it can not be stressed enough how reasoned debates are just an extension of the creator and the motivational thing and, therefore, understanding and defeating the creator and his motivations is an aspect of understanding and defeating the reasoned debate"Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben KenobiComment
-
Bad argument: You suck, therefore your argument sucks
Good argument: Your argument sucks, therefore you suck.Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, FiraxisComment
-
No evidence for the creator, therefore is no creator. It is a figment of human imagination just as Santa claus, a pink unicorn and one eyed 300 foot tall Britney Spears. In the end, that entire quotation you provided is nothing more then bull****. The argument for the creator is not well reasoned and is based on assumptions.. such as "he exists, because I know he exists and I feel his presence".For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Yes, the name may be misleading but it is a play on Richard Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker" and partial response to the flawed logic that Dawkin's used.Originally posted by Giancarlo
Lincoln, the book is just wrong. In its name at any rate. I suggest reading the book I recommended.
It is one of my books. You read mine and I will read yours.
Comment
-
I still don't understand how a blind atheist can exist when there is no evidence for christianity. I'm still waiting for a reply to that one. We aren't believeing in anything, so how can we blind to nothing?For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
A "blind atheist" is one who cannot see the obvious evidence that points to a creator. Kind of like a wasp behind a glass barrier who cannot understand that what he sees is not what he gets.Comment
-
Immortal:
whats the difference? one's arguement sucks because one sucks... one sucks because his arguement sucks... whats the difference? At best you can say there is a correlative relation... causality is an illusion."Flutie was better than Kelly, Elway, Esiason and Cunningham." - Ben Kenobi
"I have nothing against Wilson, but he's nowhere near the same calibre of QB as Flutie. Flutie threw for 5k+ yards in the CFL." -Ben KenobiComment
-
Sorry Speer for jacking your thread. I'll leave now.Comment
-
Judging from the excerpts, Dawkins isn't the one with flawed logic.Originally posted by Lincoln
Yes, the name may be misleading but it is a play on Richard Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker" and partial response to the flawed logic that Dawkin's used.
It is one of my books. You read mine and I will read yours.
Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, FiraxisComment
Comment