|
Post by hibernicus on May 15, 2017 20:55:24 GMT
The New Atheists are no longer trendy, but atheism as a way of proclaiming one's own smartness (and the dissemination of a vague sense that atheism "must" be true and belief cannot be taken seriously) haven't gone away.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 22, 2017 19:16:56 GMT
This blog is by an atheist who is a serious mediaevalist and likes to dispel some of the sillier atheist myths about the Middle Ages. Of course, it is still the work of an atheist and we ought not to forget that when reading it - but it's a good idea to test your intellectual muscle against serious opponents - as distinct from timewasting namecallers. armariummagnus.blogspot.ie/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 11, 2017 20:04:04 GMT
It is really striking to see how often commentators (especially British commentators) present the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume as having conclusively disproved theism. For example, a year or two back the London TIMES opined in an editorial that no serious person could believe in God after the publication of Hume's writings - the same TIMES which recently published a disgusting cartoon mocking Jacob Rees-Mogg's stated opposition to abortion, just in case anyone thinks all our enemies are on the left. Edward Feser has done a few posts on Hume recently, and it's really striking to see how easily Hume;s arguments fall apart once his presuppositions are examined (e.g. it never struck me that there is an obvious conflict between Hume's claim that no evidence for a miracle can be rational because it contradicts the laws of nature, and his views on causation, which suggest we can have no legitimate reason to believe that there are invariants in nature - i.e. laws of nature.) Worth taking a look at - the post linked below contains links to other Hume posts by Feser. edwardfeser.blogspot.ie/2017/09/flew-on-hume-on-miracles.html
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 27, 2017 16:53:25 GMT
Is the Eccles who featured in the controversy at the start of this thread the same Eccles who is now saved?
|
|
|
Post by annie on Sept 28, 2017 13:42:26 GMT
Is the Eccles who featured in the controversy at the start of this thread the same Eccles who is now saved? Eccles (saved) is the nom de plume of an English blog writer and who also comments online via twitter and various English newspaper columns. The Eccles at the start of this thread lived in Queensland, Australia and was known as Robert Tobin. He had a Facebook page while the English Eccles despises Facebook. I am using the past tense because according to his Facebook page, Robert Tobin passed away on 14th March 2014 after a battle with cancer. May he rest in peace.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 28, 2017 14:29:48 GMT
Is the Eccles who featured in the controversy at the start of this thread the same Eccles who is now saved? Eccles (saved) is the nom de plume of an English blog writer and who also comments online via twitter and various English newspaper columns. The Eccles at the start of this thread lived in Queensland, Australia and was known as Robert Tobin. He had a Facebook page while the English Eccles despises Facebook. I am using the past tense because according to his Facebook page, Robert Tobin passed away on 14th March 2014 after a battle with cancer. May he rest in peace. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 30, 2017 23:27:05 GMT
Eccles was a character in the 1950s Goon Show radio comedy. I think they both got the name from that. Sorry to hear the Australian Eccles has died. Prayers are in order, I think. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccles_(character)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 31, 2017 19:29:33 GMT
John Zmirak is a bit of a verbal bomb-thrower and I certainly don't agree with some of his views (Note the nasty little nativist aside about Reel Amurricans being displaced by immigrants called "Paco and Osama" - yeah, and I suppose the Zmiraks came over with the Pilgrim Fathers or were already hanging out with the Iroquois) but his comments on an atheist philosopher who argues on utilitarian grounds that consistent atheists ought not to reproduce is quite interesting. stream.org/cruel-atheists-have-kids/
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 31, 2017 22:25:26 GMT
I can't see any reference to a Paco or Osama.
There is a regularly updated and well-followed blog called Say No to Life which makes the anti-natalist argument quite seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 31, 2017 22:34:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 8, 2018 18:00:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jan 9, 2018 11:10:56 GMT
That blog post had me re-reading his posts on Rosenberg and watching the William Lane Craig vs. Rosenberg debate. Whenever Rosenberg is challenged to explain how he can remain an eliminative materialist-- which demands a rejection of intentionality, which in turn leads to such absurdities as speaking sentences in which you insist those same sentences have no meaning-- he simply takes refuge in audacity. He says: "Look, that objection is so obvious, there's no way I could have missed it. I'm well aware of it." But he never gets around to explaining how he can avoid it. This seems to be the argument of all naturalists-- naturalism MUST be true, even if we can't explain it or understand how it can be true.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 26, 2018 19:53:23 GMT
Rather like Voltaire declaring that the idea that stones fall out of the sky was obviously mediaeval superstition.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 8, 2018 22:39:50 GMT
For those who think atheists are the voice of reason and Christians hopelessly irrational: A; A Reformed Presbyterian couple in Canada successfully sue after they have their foster children taken away at a day's notice and are barred from fostering on the grounds that they traumatised the children by telling them the Easter Bunny doesn't exist: thebridgehead.ca/2018/03/08/christian-couple-did-no-do-wrong-by-not-affirming-existence-of-easter-bunny-rules-judge/ B: Richard Dawkins suggests that if human tissue could be grown in a lab it might be eaten, and presents this as a choice between "consequentialist morality and "yuk"-based absolutism". www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/richard-dawkins-mulls-taboo-against-cannibalism-en/ Professor Dawkins clearly doesn't realise that most absolutists would agree the cannibalism prohibition can be modified in cases of grave necessity - such as the famous case of the survivors from an aircrash in the Andes who ate the bodies of passengers killed in the crash in order to survive. Since Professor Dawkins is unlikely to starve in the near future, his suggestion implies he is suggesting it for the sake of transgression - in other words, he is basing himself on the "yuk" reaction except that he is opposing it rather than upholding it. Moreover, there are legitimate reasons for moral absolutism, not least historical examples of the "slippery slope": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_HocheIn the interests of fairness, here is a post by an atheist defending the legitimacy of Dawkins' intellectual musing. I think he misses the point, which is that Dawkins' mode of expression is unbelievably crass and dismissive towards anyone who disagrees with him: www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/03/05/richard-dawkins-asks-if-youd-eat-human-meat-grown-in-a-lab-dont-freak-out/
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Mar 9, 2018 11:10:47 GMT
From a utilitarian point of view, I can't see any reason to object. If you don't have a Christian (or other religious, or even non-religious) reverence for the human body, then why not?
Incidentally, I think the logic should extend to such things as public nudity. I wonder if Dawkins would defend that. In terms of consequentialism, I don't know how public nudity can be opposed.
It just seems like Dawkins is scrabbling to be controversial these days. People have grown tired of his usual stuff.
|
|