Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee | Main | Ask A Correspondent - »

Links With Your Coffee - Monday

coffee.gif


 

Comments

Concerning the shirts,

“If the shirts had said ‘Brass Resurrections’ and had a picture of Jesus on the cross, we would have done the same thing,” he said.

They effectively put the theory of evolution on the same footing as the fairy tale of religion.

Yeah; I was stunned not at the complaints but that they equated the theory of evolution with religion.

Too bad the kids had to return them. Not wearing them on parade (to keep them from having rocks thrown their way, let's say) is one thing, but I think they could have worn them for fun.

“I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school.”

It isn't.

Even more nauseating than the shirt article is the comments section within. Beware the nutters.

http://www.sedaliademocrat.com/news/0px-18740-span-font.html#slComments

As for the atheism in general (after looking over the New Yorker), I think I did see a Des Moines bus that still had an ad for non-believers. Perhaps they didn't have to remove them after all, or it will just take time. (?)

I find it exasperating that not only the creationists and religious in general, but also the self-appointed "neutrals" or agnostics or whatever the hell they wanna call themselves, have to be so dishonest as to just say stuff about the so-called "new atheists" (like they're angry, or the "intolerant certainty" in point C of Coyne's post) without providing ANY links or quotes or even explaining themselves. And when do post quotes, they don't link the source, and almost always is out of context and quote mining.

Sigh.

I have never seen for instance, super-angry PZ Myers quote some crazy nut without providing a link to the full craziness. One would think this stuff alone would make it clear who is being honest, to any reasonable person, religious or not.

"self-appointed "neutrals" or agnostics "

Over at Why Evolution is True there was a naming contest held. I think the winner title for such people is "faitheists".

I enjoy that word

Ha! Yeah I saw Coyne use that word, but I didn't know there had been a contest. Figures.

What is needed is neither the overweening rationalist atheism of a Dawkins nor the rarefied religious belief of an Eagleton but a theologically engaged atheism that resembles disappointed belief.

I have to be theologically engaged? But don't you understand, one my prime motivations for being an atheist is that religion is really boring - why the hell would I want to be theologically engaged? I love not going to church and I'm not in the least disappointed about that.

one my prime motivations for being an atheist is that religion is really boring - why the hell would I want to be theologically engaged?

this is the best argument for atheism i've ever heard. your point about "going to church" is extraneous- church has nothing to do with theological engagement. stick with your gut feelings on this and you'll be ok. :)

It's not an argument, as he said, it's a motivation, just a very nice side-effect. The arguments are well-known, especially you should know them already, people have been beating you over the head with them for a long time now, haven't they?

the brain damage shows, does it? for me, a good argument is a motivation. prevents actual brain damage from non-virtual beatings.

reminds me of that chris hitchens incident where he and his buddies got beaten up in lebanon. he didn't understand that the feelings of the lebanese about foreigners defacing their signs combined with their anxiousness to resort to physical force make a REALLY good argument against being a dick in lebanon, unless you're the israeli army- and even then i don't recommend it. i wouldn't want that to happen to tim in church. he'd probably be tempted to give jesus a clown-face and dayglo threads, out of boredom. i know i would.

If an argument is a motivation, a motivation is an argument?

I also find a good argument a motivation, but only if that argument is better than the others.

I also find a good argument a motivation, but only if that argument is better than the others.

well, of course it's only the best argument that motivates. hitchens didn't understand (or, is it possible, wasn't aware of?) the best argument in that particular case.

I find it exasperating that not only the creationists and religious in general, but also the self-appointed "neutrals" or agnostics or whatever the hell they wanna call themselves, have to be so dishonest as to just say stuff about the so-called "new atheists" (like they're angry, or the "intolerant certainty" in point C of Coyne's post) without providing ANY links or quotes or even explaining themselves.

They don't have to provide links or references, because any remarks contrary to a religious world view are by default 'angry' and not worth even that. Apologists of religion get such a pass that bringing up such behavior is enough. With words like 'delusion' and disparaging remarks in the titles of their books, one need not go further than the titles to know those new atheists should get nothing but disdain.

At least, that is what I think they must be telling themselves as adequate reasons for shoddy statements lacking reference. They can't reference anything published because they haven't read the stuff.

LOL. I love how most Iranian athletes, chess players and politicians have 'secret' engineering backgrounds.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives