sunlore wrote:What we need is a thorough secularization of public space. To me, this is only just and fair. We just can't sit around and wait for that to happen. A war of ideas is a perfectly sound, pacifist means of achieving that. Hopefully.

Exactly. The secularization of the public sphere is not about forcing atheism on people. It is about creating a neutral public space for everyone. Christians have a terrible, but hardly surprising, habit of totally ignoring this due to their belief in the supremacy of their particular religion.

In our obliviously multi-faith, multi-cultural world the only way we are all going to get along is by accepting that schools, courts and so on are neutral.

As of hope of a peaceful war of ideas, I don’t share your optimism. Remember both Christianity and Islam are apocalyptic cults, they want the world to end.

matthew wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

matthew wrote:thanks Weissenberger....just try not to pander too much

I will continue to pander as long as you continue to substitute self-serving assertions for evidence and logical rigor.

Self-serving my ass...where are you getting this from?

I will tell you where I'm "getting this from" -- every word that you speak.

You regularly make some pretty mindblowing statements. But this quote was especially mindblowing:

matthew wrote:I think that the existence of God can be shown by demonstrating what God is NOT, since God is "Pure Act" and thus our minds cannot form a concept of Him. The human mind cannot form a concept of "IS", but God "IS". He's above, NOT below, purely human intellection. This, however, is the intersection between metaphysics and faith: God is pure act: "IS"......and the name He gives to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is "I AM WHO AM". This is an overlap of reason and revelation.

Again, these are unsupported (nay, unsupportable) assertions that you use in the service of your core argument. Hence, they are "self-serving assertions".

Quotes such as the foregoing are so mindblowing that I have begun to suspect that you might be another "waltermalling" internet character. However, the earnestness of your posts seems to reveal you as a real person with a real belief in your fake-o Pauline arguments.

Which is pretty mindblowing.

matthew, I hope that the biblical texts help you to find your center. I hope that the biblical texts inform the living of a decent life. I hope that you are entertained and moved by these great and timeless stories.

Just don't insult these texts by bringing them into the arena of science. They don't belong there. They don't deserve it. You and the rest of the flock have no right to treat these great texts so shabbily.

As I see more of the "theist" camp's pained efforts at shoehorning "intelligent design" into scientific discussions, it becomes abidingly clear that these folks are little more than vacant-eyed recepticles and parrots. Moreover, these folks tend to lack a basic familiarity with their belief system's foundational text, which they nevertheless cite as authority for all matters.

I find this very depressing.

I'd like to lighten the mood with a
Salut! to 12 Pages of Excellent Band Names:

One-Note Charlie
goddam chruches
Chistmas
Scheesh
happenchance
such a naive notion
moooslams
yfugafouefhsdfouaiiadffvapno
the ultimate foundation of all things that are real
a minority of one
ill vapors
Nice one God, thanks a lot
I see hubris on both sides
honest implicataion
staring at horse butts all day
Planck Time
I like usenet
Pure reason itself
christian crapola
Why not treat a cat like a dog?
brain and a jar, evil demon and co.
Are you a women?
Wait-a-go
Go believe in Unicorns
Don't forget, my elf is magic
Pure Act
SUPERRATIONAL
Who's hurting, who here?
Self-serving my ass

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

matthew wrote:

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

matthew wrote:thanks Weissenberger....just try not to pander too much

I will continue to pander as long as you continue to substitute self-serving assertions for evidence and logical rigor.

Self-serving my ass...where are you getting this from?

I will tell you where I'm "getting this from" -- every word that you speak.

You regularly make some pretty mindblowing statements. But this quote was especially mindblowing:

matthew wrote:I think that the existence of God can be shown by demonstrating what God is NOT, since God is "Pure Act" and thus our minds cannot form a concept of Him. The human mind cannot form a concept of "IS", but God "IS". He's above, NOT below, purely human intellection. This, however, is the intersection between metaphysics and faith: God is pure act: "IS"......and the name He gives to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is "I AM WHO AM". This is an overlap of reason and revelation.

Again, these are unsupported (nay, unsupportable) assertions that you use in the service of your core argument. Hence, they are "self-serving assertions".

Quotes such as the foregoing are so mindblowing that I have begun to suspect that you might be another "waltermalling" internet character. However, the earnestness of your posts seems to reveal you as a real person with a real belief in your fake-o Pauline arguments.

Which is pretty mindblowing.

Last time I check I was a real person.....yep...real here.

Mind-blowing to you perhaps. Not to me. Check out "Being and Some Philosophers" by Etienne Gilson, the French Thomist from the early 20th century. You'll see where I am coming from. After that check out his other book "Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge". These are two essential books for understanding modern metaphysics and epistemology.

matthew, I hope that the biblical texts help you to find your center. I hope that the biblical texts inform the living of a decent life. I hope that you are entertained and moved by these great and timeless stories.

Just don't insult these texts by bringing them into the arena of science. They don't belong there. They don't deserve it. You and the rest of the flock have no right to treat these great texts so shabbily.

You are misunderstanding, Mr. W. I'm not asserting bible stories as science non plus ultra. I never have. Do I think that stories from the bible can HELP science in some very specific instances, and in return science can help us to understand the bible? Sure I do! That is, once again, the complementary nature of reason and revelation.

As I see more of the "theist" camp's pained efforts at shoehorning "intelligent design" into scientific discussions, it becomes abidingly clear that these folks are little more than vacant-eyed recepticles and parrots.

Typical condescending attitude, for the record.

Moreover, these folks tend to lack a basic familiarity with their belief system's foundational text, which they nevertheless cite as authority for all matters.

I do not think that the Bible is the "foundational text" of Christianity. I do not think that my faith HAS a foundational text as you might be imagining it in the first place. Certain Protestant faiths regard scripture that way, but not Catholicism that is for sure. There is also Sacred Tradition.

I find this very depressing.

Gramsci wrote:

sunlore wrote:What we need is a thorough secularization of public space. To me, this is only just and fair. We just can't sit around and wait for that to happen. A war of ideas is a perfectly sound, pacifist means of achieving that. Hopefully.

Exactly. The secularization of the public sphere is not about forcing atheism on people. It is about creating a neutral public space for everyone. Christians have a terrible, but hardly surprising, habit of totally ignoring this due to their belief in the supremacy of their particular religion.

In our obliviously multi-faith, multi-cultural world the only way we are all going to get along is by accepting that schools, courts and so on are neutral.

As of hope of a peaceful war of ideas, I don’t share your optimism. Remember both Christianity and Islam are apocalyptic cults, they want the world to end.

You forget that only a society based on Judaeo-Christian morality can allow for a free and open practice of religion.......secularism taken to its logical end wishes to stifle any mention religion (and particularly Christianity) in the public forum.

matthew wrote:You forget that only a society based on Judaeo-Christian morality can allow for a free and open practice of religion.......secularism taken to its logical end wishes to stifle any mention religion (and particularly Christianity) in the public forum.

Did he "forget" this? Or did he not mention it because there is absolutely no reason to believe such a thing is true?

At the risk of sounding, once again, like Japan Guy, I would point out modern Japan as just one example of a secular society, not in any sense "based on Judaeo-Christian morality" in which completely free and open practice of religion is allowed.

I could also point out several examples of historical "societies based on Judaeo-Christian morality" in which practice of religion was highly restricted, but I have this feeling that by the time I'm done typing this, someone will have beaten me to it, if they even feel it's worth it. EDIT: Okay, nobody beat me to it. But it's almost too easy.

America's only a baby! This is like picking on a 4yr old for believeing in Santa and the Easter Bunny!!! Just ignore them and they'll catch up in oooh, a century?

fantasmatical thorr wrote:America's only a baby! This is like picking on a 4yr old for believeing in Santa and the Easter Bunny!!! Just ignore them and they'll catch up in oooh, a century?

Hey, fuck you, American Baby! You spoilt little shitbag!

Cranius wrote:

Hey, fuck you, American Baby! You spoilt little shitbag!

BEST... POST... EVER!!!

so good, Cranius.