| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark D J. Mark D" |
| Date: |
29 Oct 2006 08:03:51 PM |
| Object: |
Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
M.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
29 Oct 2006 08:19:19 PM |
|
|
A few emetic sentences extracted:
--------
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two,
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
"This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the
claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his
love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no
beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure
of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather
than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause
and effect."
------
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 04:58:30 AM |
|
|
In article <Hid1h.48086$L.37402@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote:
A few emetic sentences extracted:
--------
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two,
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
Well, that sure clears things up.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 07:42:32 PM |
|
|
In article <nemo0037-3E657F.05583030102006
@news.west.earthlink.net>, *nemo* said...
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two,
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
Well, that sure clears things up.
This is the kind of characterization theologians and
philosophers conjure whenever they feel the urge to belittle
critics of religion. Supposedly, by failing to address all the
nuances of theology, in all its circular and self congratulatory
splendor, the critics are aiming at a straw man.
The fact that esoteric theological views are held (or
understood) by probably less than one-tenth of one percent of
Christians is, of course, no impediment. Theology too often aims
to convince people -- mainly other theologians -- that a
withered pile of leaves is in fact a blooming bouquet of roses.
When sensible critics refuse to remark on those roses, the
intellectuals denounce the critics for their stupidity.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 09:55:47 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1fb0740ef2b8ecdb98a103@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
reply@newsgroup.only.please says...
In article <nemo0037-3E657F.05583030102006
@news.west.earthlink.net>, *nemo* said...
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two,
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
Well, that sure clears things up.
This is the kind of characterization theologians and
philosophers conjure whenever they feel the urge to belittle
critics of religion.
Except that Dawkins specifically addressed this point in his book. He
said, I know some smarmy theologian is going to say "the god you don't
believe in either". But Dawkins went on to say that he was not just
rejecting those conceptions of god, but any and all conceptions of god
whatsoever, including the ad hoc redefinition of god as love or the
ground of all being, or whatever other forms of equivocation in which
people may wish to engage.
Supposedly, by failing to address all the
nuances of theology,
He doesn't fail to address it. He intentionally refuses to dignify their
theological nonsense with the pretense that it is even meaningful.
The fact that esoteric theological views are held (or
understood) by probably less than one-tenth of one percent of
Christians
I don't think that even theologians believe the ***** they are shovelling
with their far-out, abstract redefinitions of god. They just need
something to babble about, or they would be unemployed, just like their
fictional god.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 08:57:25 AM |
|
|
In article <nemo0037-3E657F.05583030102006@news.west.earthlink.net>,
nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net says...
In article <Hid1h.48086$L.37402@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>,
"Mark D J." <Mark D J.@hoyme.com> wrote:
A few emetic sentences extracted:
--------
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two,
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
Well, that sure clears things up.
Yep, clear as mud. Personally, I take Eagleton's stringing together of
random words as a desperate cry for help. If this isn't an argument for
making _The God Delusion_ mandatory reading, I don't know what is ;).
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 10:03:57 AM |
|
|
--------
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is.
Except that for the *original* 'Judaeo-Christians' he was *precisely that*,
and for billions of their modern descendants he is 'a person' too -- or, at
any rate, *person-like* to the extent that 'He' can be communicated with,
listened to, intercede in, want things, expect things, demand things,
proscribe things, create, 'love', punish, etc.
Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to
claim
that God does not in fact exist.
The ultimate victory of woo-woo *****: they finally agree that we are
right in saying that their magic entity doesn't exist -- and then they get
to keep him anyway, because now he's something different again!
He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves.
What a pitiful display. These people will do anything to keep the word 'God'
alive. What Eagleton is talking about is, in fact, all there is that
'Theology' has *got left* once science whittles down its ancient God-claims:
a thin smear of empty words, a resuduum of purely verbal slipperiness that
has no relation to where the argument started out. The 'sophisticated'
Theologians that Eagleton is talking about are like people so anxious to own
a knife that they still think they have one even when it's become 'a
blade-less knife that now has the handle missing'.
He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to
two,
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
Well, that sure clears things up.
Yep, clear as mud.
But easier to sell: I reckon Eagleton got more than £1000 for that crap...
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 01:45:14 PM |
|
|
In article <Nnp1h.21169$j4.10956@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, "Mark D J." <Mark=
=20
D J.@hoyme.com> says...
The ultimate victory of woo-woo *****: they finally agree that we are=
=20
right in saying that their magic entity doesn't exist -- and then they ge=
t=20
to keep him anyway, because now he's something different again!
Yep, I call it the theological three-card monty routine. =20
=20
He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves.
=20
What a pitiful display. These people will do anything to keep the word 'G=
od'=20
alive.=20
With all his fancy book learning, he apparently never heard of the term=20
equivocation. =20
What Eagleton is talking about is, in fact, all there is that=20
'Theology' has *got left* once science whittles down its ancient God-clai=
ms:=20
a thin smear of empty words, a resuduum of purely verbal slipperiness tha=
t=20
has no relation to where the argument started out. The 'sophisticated'=20
Theologians that Eagleton is talking about are like people so anxious to =
own=20
a knife that they still think they have one even when it's become 'a=20
blade-less knife that now has the handle missing'.
Which is why I say that Dawkins calls it exactly right by dismissing=20
theology as having nothing useful to say on any topic. =20
=20
He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up=
to=20
two,
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
Well, that sure clears things up.
Yep, clear as mud.
=20
But easier to sell: I reckon Eagleton got more than =A31000 for that crap=
....
I guess it would be a fair trade, if he received 1000 *pounds* of actual=20
crap back for his efforts. =20
--=20
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort=20
to take away the power of rational decision, to=20
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a=20
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in=20
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.=20
For most people, religion is nothing more than a=20
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 12:16:24 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fb00438cb506fa49896eb@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <Nnp1h.21169$j4.10956@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, "Mark D J." <Mark
D J.@hoyme.com> says...
What Eagleton is talking about is, in fact, all there is that
'Theology' has *got left* once science whittles down its ancient
God-claims:
a thin smear of empty words, a resuduum of purely verbal slipperiness
that
has no relation to where the argument started out. The 'sophisticated'
Theologians that Eagleton is talking about are like people so anxious to
own
a knife that they still think they have one even when it's become 'a
blade-less knife that now has the handle missing'.
Which is why I say that Dawkins calls it exactly right by dismissing
theology as having nothing useful to say on any topic.
Indeed. It seems to me, in fact, that 'theology' is just a verbal
juggling-contest whose aim is to keep the term 'God' in the air for as long
as possible: the only 'rules' are: (i) 'God' can't be anything that can be
disproved, and (ii) 'God' really has to be 'good' (though it's possible to
flirt short-term with the possibility that 'God' is 'bad'...). As long as
those two things are the 'fixed points' *any and every kind of crap is
allowable*....
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 07:38:12 AM |
|
|
In article <YSB1h.21486$j4.8301@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, "Mark D J." <Mark
D J.@hoyme.com> says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fb00438cb506fa49896eb@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <Nnp1h.21169$j4.10956@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, "Mark D J." <Mark
D J.@hoyme.com> says...
What Eagleton is talking about is, in fact, all there is that
'Theology' has *got left* once science whittles down its ancient
God-claims:
a thin smear of empty words, a resuduum of purely verbal slipperiness
that
has no relation to where the argument started out. The 'sophisticated'
Theologians that Eagleton is talking about are like people so anxious to
own
a knife that they still think they have one even when it's become 'a
blade-less knife that now has the handle missing'.
Which is why I say that Dawkins calls it exactly right by dismissing
theology as having nothing useful to say on any topic.
Indeed. It seems to me, in fact, that 'theology' is just a verbal
juggling-contest whose aim is to keep the term 'God' in the air for as long
as possible: the only 'rules' are: (i) 'God' can't be anything that can be
disproved,
But, of course, if they ever do end up defining god in a way that is not
only disprovable, but is actually, outright disproven, then they will
just merrily invent a new definition without even acknowledging the
previous defeat. I do like the juggling metaphor, BTW. Like my analogy
of "theological three-card monty" it keeps at least three objects in
rapid motion, though juggling theoretically makes it easier to introduce
more objects, a bit easier. It also creates a more appropriately
"circus" atmosphere.
and (ii) 'God' really has to be 'good' (though it's possible to
flirt short-term with the possibility that 'God' is 'bad'...).
I would characterize that particular circus side show diversion as the
"escape artist maneuver". They pretend that they are going to make a
criticism of their religious beliefs and then immediately start to
wriggle out of it, like some half-assed Houdini bound in trick-release
manacles.
As long as
those two things are the 'fixed points' *any and every kind of crap is
allowable*....
That's why, in Dawkins book, he quotes one of his colleagues as having
serious misgivings that theology is an area of study at all.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 07:39:52 PM |
|
|
In article <Hid1h.48086$L.37402@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, said...
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves.
For most fundamentalists, God is indeed a person in the sense
that Al Gore is, or rather like George Bush is: venal,
vindictive, and given to capricious abuse of his power.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 09:59:58 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1fb07371aac591ad98a102@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
reply@newsgroup.only.please says...
In article <Hid1h.48086$L.37402@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, said...
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves.
For most fundamentalists, God is indeed a person in the sense
that Al Gore is, or rather like George Bush is
Certainly Jebus is supposed to be a flesh-incarnated person in the
precise sense that any other human being is. Pretending that all that
is meant by god is the "condition of possibility of an entity" is beyond
ludicrous, even for theologians.
:
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 12:22:25 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fb0782b717e9a7b9896f1@news.
Certainly Jebus is supposed to be a flesh-incarnated person in the
precise sense that any other human being is. Pretending that all that
is meant by god is the "condition of possibility of an entity" is beyond
ludicrous, even for theologians.
My shy suggestion, by the way, is that Eagleton (a doctrinaire Marxist for
many years, I am given to understand...) was probably told all that
theological crap by someone else: Eagleton writes often for the LRB; someone
who really is a 'theologian' but never gets near being invited to write for
them must have had an axe to grind, and offered to help him...
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 07:21:01 AM |
|
|
In article <BYB1h.21487$j4.2027@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, "Mark D J." <Mark
D J.@hoyme.com> says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fb0782b717e9a7b9896f1@news.
Certainly Jebus is supposed to be a flesh-incarnated person in the
precise sense that any other human being is. Pretending that all that
is meant by god is the "condition of possibility of an entity" is beyond
ludicrous, even for theologians.
My shy suggestion, by the way, is that Eagleton (a doctrinaire Marxist for
many years, I am given to understand...) was probably told all that
theological crap by someone else: Eagleton writes often for the LRB; someone
who really is a 'theologian' but never gets near being invited to write for
them must have had an axe to grind, and offered to help him...
Or he had a recent conversion. One way or the other, it seems like he
has a pretty naive understanding of that topic. I realize that he is not
a professional theologian, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out
that he was a failed seminary student before his other academic forays.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 01:50:45 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fb0fbac9cc5a3779896f2@news
Or he had a recent conversion. One way or the other, it seems like he
has a pretty naive understanding of that topic. I realize that he is not
a professional theologian, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out
that he was a failed seminary student before his other academic forays.
You're a bright kid, quib! See here for info about Eagleton's *actual
theological history*...!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Eagleton
Well done!
M.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 01:11:49 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <MPG.1fb07371aac591ad98a102@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
reply@newsgroup.only.please says...
In article <Hid1h.48086$L.37402@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, said...
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves.
For most fundamentalists, God is indeed a person in the sense
that Al Gore is, or rather like George Bush is
Certainly Jebus is supposed to be a flesh-incarnated person in the
precise sense that any other human being is. Pretending that all that
is meant by god is the "condition of possibility of an entity" is beyond
ludicrous, even for theologians.
However, I'm glad to see an article like this in a nation less infected
than the US. I wonder just how many people will read such blatant
evasions and wonder why they're continuing to treat theism with
respect. "..hm, perhaps this Dawkins fellow is correct? I wonder what
his book says.."
I was going to ask if anyone else had seen the AC Grayling article in
the Guardian today, but then recalled that Mark D J was the one that
posted it in the first place..<g>
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 08:51:14 AM |
|
|
In article <Hid1h.48086$L.37402@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, "Mark D J." <Mark
D J.@hoyme.com> says...
A few emetic sentences extracted:
--------
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is.
A bad example, to be sure ;)
Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist.
Yes, in the sense called *reality*.
He is, rather, the condition of possibility
*****. That has nothing whatsover to do with a god. Possibility is
just a construct that we use when a phenomena isn't predictable enough to
say how it will behave with certainty.
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing.
That's a completely new definition and an even more ridiculous one. The
reason that there is something, rather than nothing (presuming that there
is a "reason") is (1) things had to be somehow. We either have existence
or non-existence and non-existence has not properties at all, including
the property of having god. Therefore, a state of somethingness is
selectively the only one which even enables humans to reflect upon it.
(2) it's not even clear that nothingness is a possibility. Before merely
asserting that nothingness is possible, it is necessary to prove it.
Note that nothingness is not the same as merely empty space, or the
absense of one thing. Nothingness is the absense of all properties and
all things. Space, time and existence itself could not *ahem* exist. We
can't even speak of nothingness "existing" because its non-existence. We
can't speak of a state of nothingness, because a state is something and
nothingness doesn't even have that. So it's not clear that nothingness
is a coherent idea. It may be that it's merely impossible for there to
be nothing and that something, in some form, always had to exist. And
there's no reason to call that something "god", BTW.
"This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the
claim that God is Creator.
Oh ***** that is the "traditional" answer. That's the ***** modern
theological copout. I can point you to hundreds of millions of ignorant
xians and muslims who believe that god is literally the manufacturer of
every single object in the universe. It must be nice to never leave the
ivory tower.
He is what sustains all things
Horseshit again. First off, it's not clear that things stand in need
being "sustained" by his non-existent power. That's why Dawkins is quite
right in dismissing theologians such as Eagleton, as purveyors of
mindless, time-wasting nonsense. Terry's little tantrum nicely proves
the worthlessness of theological (or as I pronounce it "the-illogical")
methodology as a means of understanding anything.
in being by his
love;
He's shifted the definition again, this time to try to make god out to be
an emotion.
and this would still be the case even if the universe had no
beginning.
Except that it would be impossible for him to sustain or love something
that didn't exist. Oops.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 02:33:42 AM |
|
|
Mark D J. wrote:
A few emetic sentences extracted:
--------
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore
arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or 'existent': in one sense
of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim
that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility
of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there
is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two,
any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
"This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the
claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his
love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no
beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure
of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather
than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause
and effect."
So boys and girls, God is the thing which is not a thing, which through
its love makes it possible for things which are things to exist,
because it's obvious that things that are things cannot come into
existance without cause. Simple really.
The question being why should anybody actually believe it? As Dawkins
points out in the book, they haven't got around the problem at all,
merely declared it a nonproblem 'a fiat'. Theists continually present
lists of characteristics which God is supposed to have, but never
actually present any basis for this belief, beyond logical arguments
with doubtful premises.
Apart from this, there are errors in the review: satan is not hebrew
for accuser, but advesary, according to my OED. The rules of cause and
effect do not apply at the quantum level and there are the usual
misrepresentations of Dawkins' position; not exactly promising for
someone complaining that Dawkins is misrepresenting their views.
The main problem with the review of course, is that Eagleton presents
this view of God as the one everyone believes in, when of course it
isn't. The VAST majority of people who believe in God believe in a
super being who stands in judgement. These are the people trying to
usurp power and these are the people with a predeliction for murder,
and these are the people The God Delusion is aimed at.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 08:02:11 AM |
|
|
In article <1162283622.528045.163170@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
diri.gini@virgin.net says...
The main problem with the review of course, is that Eagleton presents
this view of God as the one everyone believes in, when of course it
isn't.
Furthermore, as I've already pointed out in this thread, Dawkins
predicted that precisely this sort of evasion would be used. Some
wannabe theologian like Eagleton would come along and say, "The god you
don't believe in, I don't believe in either". Then said person will take
off his hat and proceed to conjure various theological bunnies from it
with no more than an "abracadabra" and a bit of hand-waving.
The VAST majority of people who believe in God believe in a
super being who stands in judgement.
The vast majority of people he's talking about believe that jesus popped
out of a virgin woman who had spiritual coitus with god. Then he
wandered around the earth for over thirty doing parlor tricks and talking
like a fortune cookie, only to finally get nailed by his opponents,
enabling him to do a zombie routine before jetting off to heaven for the
rest of eternity.
These are the people trying to
usurp power and these are the people with a predeliction for murder,
and these are the people The God Delusion is aimed at.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 08:09:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:02:11 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <1162283622.528045.163170@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
diri.gini@virgin.net says...
The main problem with the review of course, is that Eagleton presents
this view of God as the one everyone believes in, when of course it
isn't.
Furthermore, as I've already pointed out in this thread, Dawkins
predicted that precisely this sort of evasion would be used. Some
wannabe theologian like Eagleton would come along and say, "The god you
don't believe in, I don't believe in either". Then said person will take
off his hat and proceed to conjure various theological bunnies from it
with no more than an "abracadabra" and a bit of hand-waving.
That's a standard theist dishonesty. They use selective amnesia to
redefine it as they go along.
An elderly atheist I know seems to think that asking a believer why
they worship a sadistic monster who killed all life on Earth but a
tiny fraction, and condemns people to eternal torture for finite
"offences" like not believing in it, is some kind of silver bullet.
But that's not how they see their god. It's good, kind, loving etc.
If you have that kind of selective amnesia that is driven by cognitive
dissonance making that side of it vanish.
The VAST majority of people who believe in God believe in a
super being who stands in judgement.
The vast majority of people he's talking about believe that jesus popped
out of a virgin woman who had spiritual coitus with god. Then he
wandered around the earth for over thirty doing parlor tricks and talking
like a fortune cookie, only to finally get nailed by his opponents,
enabling him to do a zombie routine before jetting off to heaven for the
rest of eternity.
These are the people trying to
usurp power and these are the people with a predeliction for murder,
and these are the people The God Delusion is aimed at.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 09:40:57 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:btlek2thpf641bjl8j2080cjmrlb9hd9bn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:02:11 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
An elderly atheist I know seems to think that asking a believer why
they worship a sadistic monster who killed all life on Earth but a
tiny fraction, and condemns people to eternal torture for finite
"offences" like not believing in it, is some kind of silver bullet.
But that's not how they see their god. It's good, kind, loving etc.
If you have that kind of selective amnesia that is driven by cognitive
dissonance making that side of it vanish.
They're scared of it, and scared of what they think it can do to them.
That's why they have to suck up to it and overlook its bad points.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (apathist chapter)
"Faith doesn't move mountains - it levels buildings."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 09:46:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:40:57 -0000, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:btlek2thpf641bjl8j2080cjmrlb9hd9bn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:02:11 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
An elderly atheist I know seems to think that asking a believer why
they worship a sadistic monster who killed all life on Earth but a
tiny fraction, and condemns people to eternal torture for finite
"offences" like not believing in it, is some kind of silver bullet.
But that's not how they see their god. It's good, kind, loving etc.
If you have that kind of selective amnesia that is driven by cognitive
dissonance making that side of it vanish.
They're scared of it, and scared of what they think it can do to them.
That's why they have to suck up to it and overlook its bad points.
I don't think that's it. They are utterly convinced that it is good.
Period. So the bad side simply isn't there. It's the same kind of
in-denial view they have of Christianity's bloody history.
They reserve the threat part for others, not themselves. Which
includes those they love - I've known atheists go through the motions
because their theist spouse is terrified for them - and also priests
who knew this and lied through their teeth about deathbed conversions
etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve O" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 10:14:44 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:smrek21rfmhf4mtkbafm3kubk5vcfqn981@4ax.com...
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:40:57 -0000, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:btlek2thpf641bjl8j2080cjmrlb9hd9bn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:02:11 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
An elderly atheist I know seems to think that asking a believer why
they worship a sadistic monster who killed all life on Earth but a
tiny fraction, and condemns people to eternal torture for finite
"offences" like not believing in it, is some kind of silver bullet.
But that's not how they see their god. It's good, kind, loving etc.
If you have that kind of selective amnesia that is driven by cognitive
dissonance making that side of it vanish.
They're scared of it, and scared of what they think it can do to them.
That's why they have to suck up to it and overlook its bad points.
I don't think that's it. They are utterly convinced that it is good.
Period. So the bad side simply isn't there. It's the same kind of
in-denial view they have of Christianity's bloody history.
I'd tend to agree, they do convince themselves of that, but I'm sure there's
an element of the Stockholm Syndrome in there somewhere.
They're always talking about being "saved"
Terrified passengers in a hijacked plane try to endear themselves to the
terrorist to save themselves, often developing strong bonds and attachments
to their captor, overlooking their bad points, and magnifying each and every
small "kindness". (ie - not killing or destroying them)
The hijacked passenger is also convinced that their hijacker is good,and if
they can get them to love them enough, and obey their rules, they won't come
to any harm.
I see the same pattern in theists and in their deep bonds and attachments to
their gods.
Can you see the point I am trying to make here.. I don't think I'm
expressing myself very well?
They reserve the threat part for others, not themselves. Which
includes those they love - I've known atheists go through the motions
because their theist spouse is terrified for them - and also priests
who knew this and lied through their teeth about deathbed conversions
etc.
Fear is an essential part of the syndrome.
--
Steve O
a.a. #2240 (apathist chapter)
"Faith doesn't move mountains - it levels buildings."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
31 Oct 2006 10:33:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:14:44 -0000, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:smrek21rfmhf4mtkbafm3kubk5vcfqn981@4ax.com...
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:40:57 -0000, "Steve O" <sendspam@here.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:btlek2thpf641bjl8j2080cjmrlb9hd9bn@4ax.com...
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:02:11 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
An elderly atheist I know seems to think that asking a believer why
they worship a sadistic monster who killed all life on Earth but a
tiny fraction, and condemns people to eternal torture for finite
"offences" like not believing in it, is some kind of silver bullet.
But that's not how they see their god. It's good, kind, loving etc.
If you have that kind of selective amnesia that is driven by cognitive
dissonance making that side of it vanish.
They're scared of it, and scared of what they think it can do to them.
That's why they have to suck up to it and overlook its bad points.
I don't think that's it. They are utterly convinced that it is good.
Period. So the bad side simply isn't there. It's the same kind of
in-denial view they have of Christianity's bloody history.
I'd tend to agree, they do convince themselves of that, but I'm sure there's
an element of the Stockholm Syndrome in there somewhere.
Possibly.
I've never been any kind of theist so I look at it totally from
outside, based on what they say and do, which are all too often at
odds with each other.
They're always talking about being "saved"
Terrified passengers in a hijacked plane try to endear themselves to the
terrorist to save themselves, often developing strong bonds and attachments
to their captor, overlooking their bad points, and magnifying each and every
small "kindness". (ie - not killing or destroying them)
The hijacked passenger is also convinced that their hijacker is good,and if
they can get them to love them enough, and obey their rules, they won't come
to any harm.
I see the same pattern in theists and in their deep bonds and attachments to
their gods.
Can you see the point I am trying to make here.. I don't think I'm
expressing myself very well?
There is an excellent book by Edmund Cohen called The Mind of the
Bible Believer. He is a psychologist who briefly got sucked into
fundamentalism and afterwards analysed what had happened to him and
why he fell for it.
I don't know that I agree with everything he says, compared with my
own observations, but a lot of it makes sense.
Stephen Doe wrote some excellent summaries on alt.atheism in 1992
which you can find on google groups.
I read these and then got the big which unfortunately is no longer in
my possession, having been donated to the library of my not-so-local
atheist group.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
29 Oct 2006 10:05:28 PM |
|
|
In article <b4d1h.48084$L.47539@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, "Mark D J." <Mark
D J.@hoyme.com> says...
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
I admit that Dawkins is quite dismissive of the theology. However,
contrary to Eagleton's ignorant conjecture, I don't believe that it is
because Dawkins is unfamiliar with theology. Rather, it's because he has
looked at it in some detail and has correctly determined that it is,
generally speaking, time-wasting nonsense based upon fundamentally flawed
principles.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 05:45:07 AM |
|
|
Mark D J. wrote:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
Amazing!
This guy speaks a variety of gibberish that I just cant process.
Might as well be
"Blah blah yackety yak"
I recognise the words - and the gramatical structure seems to be like
educated english - but it conveys no meaning.
Quite an achievement really.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
29 Oct 2006 08:26:01 PM |
|
|
Mark D J. wrote:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
M.
Terry Eagleton (who is this loon?) says:
"These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less
august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday."
Am I reading this correctly? Is this guy intimating that theology is
like a female impersonator?
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 04:56:32 AM |
|
|
In article <1162175161.500583.163800@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark D J. wrote:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
M.
Terry Eagleton (who is this loon?) says:
"These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less
august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday."
Am I reading this correctly? Is this guy intimating that theology is
like a female impersonator?
Just to intimate that it is a "science" at all marks this guy as a loon
who is not acquainted with the meaning of the word.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark D J. Mark D" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 05:08:09 AM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-3D9395.05563230102006@news.west.earthlink
Terry Eagleton (who is this loon?)
He is an influential ex-Oxford literature professor. For a time, back in the
late 90s, he was Britain's highest-earning academic. So I'm told...
M.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 09:02:25 AM |
|
|
In article <t2l1h.31420$iq4.6744@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, "Mark D J." <Mark
D J.@hoyme.com> says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-3D9395.05563230102006@news.west.earthlink
Terry Eagleton (who is this loon?)
He is an influential ex-Oxford literature professor. For a time, back in the
late 90s, he was Britain's highest-earning academic. So I'm told...
They actually paid this guy to spew disconnected gibberish like the
review above?
One is reminded of the statement by Mencken, "A metaphysician is one who,
when you remark that twice two makes four, demands to know what you mean
by twice, what by two, what by makes, and what by four. For asking such
questions metaphysicians are supported in oriental luxury in the
universities, and respected as educated and intelligent men." A similar
arrangement apparently applies to Oxford literature professors.
--
"I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort
to take away the power of rational decision, to
drain people of their free will--and a hell of a
lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in
their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all.
For most people, religion is nothing more than a
substitute for a malfunctioning brain." --Gene Roddenberry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins reviewd by *Terry Eagleton*... LOL!! |
30 Oct 2006 06:05:38 AM |
|
|
On 29 Oct 2006 18:26:01 -0800, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mark D J. wrote:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
M.
Terry Eagleton (who is this loon?) says:
"These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less
august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday."
Am I reading this correctly? Is this guy intimating that theology is
like a female impersonator?
Not a bad analogy: you can dress it up to look like the real thing,
but however pretty you make it, it's still a fake in the end.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
