Skip to main content

View Diary: When God is Least Expected (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I often see... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil
    And because these are representative of a mindset you'll often see.
    French poodles, however, they're not a majority of the dogs I encounter on a daily basis.
    Do you expect transcripts of every conversation I had or witnessed ever. You have samples right here. Google the topic and you'll have many more.
    I expect that if you are the scientist you claim, that you'll recognize the problems of sampling, confirmation, and stereotype bias behind any statement grounded in "every conversation I had or witnessed ever."
    i didn't talk about materialism at all except to note that such advocates are routinely dismissive of topics which lie outside its assumptions and capabilities. I don't know where you get a clue as to my understanding of materialism.
    Ignoring the existence of about 3,000 years of inquiry by materialists into such things as ethics and aesthetics.
    How can you deny that?
    Are you really asking me to empirically prove a negative?
    Are you serious or just trying to imply there's something wrong with my character?
    Yes, in that you seem to insist on making statements about my character (a a member of a species) without even having bought me a beer, much less participated in my interfaith community.
    •  good grief, you expect a detailed accounting (0+ / 0-)

      of the entire realm of possible atheists in a simple blog post? Rules, exceptions to... ring a bell?

      There have not been 3,000 years of materialist inquiry. That's historical nonsense. You could plausibly say it started with Descartes 400 years ago, except he was a theist. As were most all the Royal Academy of Science, the English and French versions.

      Materialism of the sort we have since the 19th C through Hitchens and Dawkins -- where  consciousness is a by-product of chemical processes, an illusion, has, at a stretch, 250 years.

      You might plausibly credit Mesmer with the roots of modern psychology, but really, you'd have to start with James and Freud (and the chap Freud got his start with, can't remember the name at the moment), imo.

      When I made a generalization, which covers most all my experience, I did not mean to target you specifically, since I'd never heard of you, nor your pen name.

      I'd be glad to hear of your systematic and data-oriented exploration of the questions of religion and the meaning of the word "god" and how that relates to people's subjective experience. Should you possess such.


      If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

      by Jim P on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:23:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, just noticed the tipoff, on the generalization (0+ / 0-)

        point where you quoted me:

        a mindset you'll often see.
        See the word "often"? You must know among its meanings and implications are "not in every instance."

        We have the word "always" for that in my native language.

        I didn't use the word "always." I used "often."

        Perhaps you just wanted to take umbrage more than actually talk about the subject. Again, please share your systematic explorations of the topic of religion, god, and human psychology.


        If Republicans said every 3rd person named "Smith" should hang, we'd bargain them to every 7th. Then we'll see apologia written praising this most pragmatic compromise. There's our losing formula.

        by Jim P on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:27:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In fact yes ... (0+ / 0-)
        of the entire realm of possible atheists in a simple blog post?
        Well yes, if you're going to make claims about a group, I expect you to demonstrate either that you've done your research, or properly qualify your statements. Thus far, you have done neither.
        There have not been 3,000 years of materialist inquiry.
        Atomism goes back to at least the 6th century BCE, in two different cultures. That has included dozens of philosophers who openly and not-so-openly considered the non-existence of god. You don't get to dismiss those aspects of a philosophy that are least convenient to your argument. That is, after all, a major criticism of modern atheism and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
        Perhaps you just wanted to take umbrage more than actually talk about the subject.
        If you want to talk, you can show up to my congregation, members of which wrote the first humanist manifesto after all. And if I see your face perhaps a half-dozen times, I might feel comfortable with that discussion.

        But until then, I have no need to prove anything to you, and no way to prove it, since I only have testimony of things I witnessed, and that's not exactly communicable.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site