Motivations for Continuing to Cling to Philosophy of Materialism
david ford
Psychology of Atheism_ (Dallas: Spence Publishing
Company), 174pp. On 136-7, some of the reasons for which
Vitz adopted atheism (he later rejected atheism):
PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE
Since the American War of Independence and the
French Revolution, an exaggerated desire for
independence has characterized much of Western
society. To be a "self-made man," to be "autonomous"
and "authentic," have been common ideals. A chip on
the shoulder "no-one-tells-me-what-to-do" mentality has
been widely admired and has become a cliche of modern
culture. Obviously, such attitudes fit especially well
with the psychology of the young male. This kind of
attitude easily generalizes into an independence from all
restraint, and thus supports the rejection of belief in
God. For me, as presumably for many, becoming an
atheist was part of a personal infatuation with the
"romance of the autonomous self."
PERSONAL CONVENIENCE
Finally, in this list of superficial but nonetheless strong
non-rational pressures to become an atheist, I must list
simple personal convenience. The fact is that, in the
powerful secular and neopagan world of today, it is
quite inconvenient to be a serious believer. I would
have had to give up many pleasures (you may use your
imagination) and was unwilling to do so. And besides,
religion takes a good deal of time, not just Sunday
mornings; the serious practice of any religion calls for
much more than that. There are other church services,
as well as time for prayer and Scripture reading, not to
mention time for "good works" of various sorts. I was
far too busy for such time-consuming activities.
Wiker, Benjamin (a creationist). 2002. _Moral Darwinism:
How We Became Hedonists_ (Downers Grove, Illinois:
InterVarsity Press), 327pp. Paragraphs on 56-57:
Could it be that much of the impetus keeping
materialism as the reigning view of science today is, as
it was with Epicurus [341-270 B.C.], moral in origin,
both in the broader and in the more confined sense? I
believe, in many cases, that it is. To be blunt,
materialists often suppress (or simply dismiss) evidence
of intelligent design because, consciously or
unconsciously, they realize that the Epicurean moral
world they comfortably inhabit (for it was Epicurus's
goal to make the world comfortable) would be
completely undermined if materialist cosmology were
overthrown by intelligent design.
In this, materialists rightly embrace that most
fundamental law mentioned in the introduction, that
every distinct view of the universe entails a view of
morality, and every distinct view of morality needs a
cosmology to support it. Many materialists therefore
rightly fear the intelligent design revolution because
they realize that a moral revolution necessarily follows
upon it. If an intelligent designer exists, then a divinely
mandated moral code for which we are accountable
might exist. If an intelligent designer is not part of
nature, and hence is not material, then he could have
created other immaterial entities such as the immortal
and immaterial soul. If the immortal soul exists and
God exists, and he mandates a moral code, then heaven
and hell might exist. If heaven and hell exist and God
exists, then we might be held accountable for actions
that are mandated or prohibited. All of this is quite
disturbing, and materialists rightly fear it. Those who
wish to be freed from it realize that materialism remains
the therapeutic cure.
For Further Reading
[Vitz]"it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer. I would
have had to give up many pleasures (you may use your
imagination) and was unwilling to do so."
[Wiker]"materialists often suppress (or simply dismiss)
evidence of intelligent design because, consciously or
unconsciously, they realize that the Epicurean moral world
they comfortably inhabit (for it was Epicurus's goal to make
the world comfortable) would be completely undermined if
materialist cosmology were overthrown by intelligent
design"
Convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity
of many varieties
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
[Vitz]"There are other church services, as well as time for
prayer and Scripture reading, not to mention time for 'good
works' of various sorts. I was far too busy for such
time-consuming activities."
[2004 Dawkins]"the time-consuming, wealth-consuming,
hostility-provoking, fecundity-forfeiting rituals of religion"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409021642.4830e330%40posting.google.com
[Wiker]"If heaven and hell exist and God exists, then we
might be held accountable for actions that are mandated or
prohibited."
Flew and the nature of hell
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33b5roF3v2ikjU1%40individual.net
[Wiker]"impetus keeping materialism as the reigning view of science
today is, as it was with Epicurus [341-270 B.C.], moral in origin"
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and
Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
maff
david ford wrote:
[...]
Where's the evidence for Christian fascism, scum?
Bob
wrote:
>Vitz, Paul C. 1999. _Faith of the Fatherless: The
>Psychology of Atheism_ (Dallas: Spence Publishing
>Company), 174pp. On 136-7, some of the reasons for which
>Vitz adopted atheism (he later rejected atheism):
since the philosophy of materialism as used by creationists is at best
undefined, and at worst wrong, dave is using philosophy like a hooker
uses KY jelly.
> PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE
> Since the American War of Independence and the
> French Revolution, an exaggerated desire for
> independence has characterized much of Western
> society.
yeah, it's a shame. all it gave us was the most free, richest society
on earth. it sucks, doesnt it?
>
> PERSONAL CONVENIENCE
> Finally, in this list of superficial but nonetheless strong
> non-rational pressures to become an atheist, I must list
> simple personal convenience. The fact is that, in the
> powerful secular and neopagan world of today, it is
> quite inconvenient to be a serious believer.
and it's even more convenient to be a believer. all members of
congress believe in god. folks wouldnt vote for an atheist for
dogcatcher. getting the 10 commandments out of the courthouse leads to
death threats against atheists.
so it's easier to be a believer than a nonbeliever
>
>Wiker, Benjamin (a creationist). 2002. _Moral Darwinism:
>How We Became Hedonists_ (Downers Grove, Illinois:
>InterVarsity Press), 327pp. Paragraphs on 56-57:
> Could it be that much of the impetus keeping
> materialism as the reigning view of science today is, as
> it was with Epicurus [341-270 B.C.], moral in origin
no. it's because
1. materialism works. all causes we have identified in nature have
natural, material causes
2. supernaturalism once WAS science. that ALWAYS failed. each and
every time.
> both in the broader and in the more confined sense? I
> believe, in many cases, that it is. To be blunt,
> materialists often suppress (or simply dismiss) evidence
> of intelligent design because,
what is 'evidence of intelligent design' when ID people cant tell us
how ID works. they specifically exclude NATURAL laws, and insist on
the supernatural. how does that work?
'god did it'.
>
> In this, materialists rightly embrace that most
> fundamental law mentioned in the introduction, that
> every distinct view of the universe entails a view of
> morality,
nonsense. there are conservative christians and liberal atheists who
are both evolutionary biologists
this kind of stereotyping is typical creationists rhetoric
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> Vitz, Paul C. 1999. _Faith of the Fatherless: The
> Psychology of Atheism_ (Dallas: Spence Publishing
> Company), 174pp. On 136-7, some of the reasons for which
> Vitz adopted atheism (he later rejected atheism):
> PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE
> PERSONAL CONVENIENCE
[....]
So, some idiot rejected religion for all the wrong reasons. This is
supposed to be an argument for what, exactly?
> Wiker, Benjamin (a creationist). 2002. _Moral Darwinism:
> How We Became Hedonists_ (Downers Grove, Illinois:
> InterVarsity Press), 327pp. Paragraphs on 56-57:
> Could it be that much of the impetus keeping
> materialism as the reigning view of science today is, as
> it was with Epicurus [341-270 B.C.], moral in origin,
> both in the broader and in the more confined sense? I
> believe, in many cases, that it is. To be blunt,
[snip more innuendo]
How, in all your massive research, did you manage to miss the concept of
"Argument Ad Hominem", and why it's a Bad Thing?
You really are contemptible.
-- Kizhe
david ford
What exactly is [m]"Christian fascism"?
Einstein to zu Lowenstein;
1941 Einstein: "people who say there is no God. But what really makes
me angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
Lenin's becoming an atheist; 1922 Lenin; Bertrand Russell never taken in
by Soviet regime; 2005 President Bush inaugural speech
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-35nbd1F4pm3jiU1%40individual.net
theological leanings of twenty signers of the Declaration of
Independence; Timeline of Einstein's Loss of Faith in Materialism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-35bcc1F4j6a0cU1%40individual.net
Hawking not an atheist
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980927230202.15518B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981023223535.2360A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981002001223.7287B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Bob
wrote:
>maff wrote:
>> david ford wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Where's the evidence for Christian fascism, scum?
>
>What exactly is [m]"Christian fascism"?
>
what, exactly, is the 'theory' of intelligent design?
DJ Nozem
wrote:
(snip, Vitz his nonsensical "psychology" has been hacked into ugly
little pieces often enough here on alt.atheism)
>[Vitz]"it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer. I would
>have had to give up many pleasures (you may use your
>imagination) and was unwilling to do so."
You have to wonder why, in the face of this statement, Vitz isn't more
interested in why most believers are in fact not serious to the point
of giving up many pleasures. A far more interesting problem, it would
seem to me, you'd get to deal with mental dissonance and all that.
Of course psychological research into the hypocrisy of believers might
not as easily get money from rich businessmen as simplistic nonsense
about the irresponsibility of atheists that makes believers feel all
fuzzy about their moral stature?
--
ATHÉE: Un peuple d'athées ne saurait subsister. -- Flaubert
Greg G.
the natural position for every sane person, including those who claim
to reject it. Faith is never perfect.
Where would medicine be if not for materialistic explanations of
disease, rather than demonic possessions or divine punishment.
The evolution of the flagellum is now understood to have come from the
type III secretory system with proteins found to be used by other
systems. The non-materialistic IDers wanted us to believe that the
evolution of the structure could not be explained and the proteins
would have had to have popped up simultaneously.
It is simply dangerous to ascribe non-materialistic explanations
prematurely for two reasons. First, one looks foolish when a
materilistic explanation arises, but more importantly, it stifles
science.
Our technology did not reach the level of Roman technology until about
200 years ago. For 1000 years, western culture clung to
non-materialistic explanations rather than building on Roman
technology, a period known as the Dark Ages.
We are about 800 years behind where we should be on the technological
curve because of non-materialistic philosophy.
--
Greg G.
I've been feeling really apathetic lately. Like today -- Jimmy cracked
corn, but I don't care.
--Howie Mandell
Mark K. Bilbo
lumbered into the room and mumbled:
> david ford wrote:
>> Vitz, Paul C. 1999. _Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of
>> Atheism_ (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company), 174pp. On 136-7, some of
>> the reasons for which Vitz adopted atheism (he later rejected atheism):
>> PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE
> [....]
>> PERSONAL CONVENIENCE
> [....]
>
> So, some idiot rejected religion for all the wrong reasons. This is
> supposed to be an argument for what, exactly?
David Ford's stupidity maybe?
(How many times has he posted this crap now anyway?)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
You can stir your bullshit, roast it, baste it, quickfreeze it, it stays
bullshit.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
maff
david ford wrote:
> maff wrote:
> > david ford wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Where's the evidence for Christian fascism, scum?
>
> What exactly is [m]"Christian fascism"?
>
Christian fascism was the one which was defeated in the Civil War,
Christian fascist scum. If you can't convince majority of the
Christians of the superority of Christian fascism, how're you going to
convince the rest of World?
sanguinevikings
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-35qm...@individual.net...
> maff wrote:
> > david ford wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > Where's the evidence for Christian fascism, scum?
>
> What exactly is [m]"Christian fascism"?
sanguinevikings
1. The fact that materialism is the only tenable view of reality.
2. Nothing else.
sanguinevikings
DJ Nozem <d...@pjn.qsrch.net> wrote in message
news:1sbgv0h4gdfhr351v...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:34 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> (snip, Vitz his nonsensical "psychology" has been hacked into ugly
> little pieces often enough here on alt.atheism)
Where R = ripped & P = Pieces.
BTW I had a father, he and my mum brought me up to think for myself and care
about the truth. I have always been an Atheist, and my Dad would never have
let anybody nail me to a lump of wood and leave me to die.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Yep. My parents were both at heists. They didn't teach any deity, but
taught me to think critically - so that when a fundamentalist teacher
tried to push her deity I treated it like some kind of silly
spot-the-flaw tall story game. For example when she asked me who
created everything, I asked why it took a "who". Eventually she wrote
to my parents accusing me of blasphemy and they laughed in her face.
Daniel T.
> 1941 Einstein: "people who say there is no God. But what really makes
> me angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should
transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both
the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense
arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a
meaningful unity. If there is any religion that would cope with modern
scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.
-- Albert Einstein
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
That's why there must be so many Quakers and Methodists in the Liberal
Democrat Party Over Here (1).
Lizz 'Liberal as in the UKoGBaNI, not as in Australia (2)' Holmans
(1) There's a good polysci explaination, but I'm not sure all you
folks would be fascinated by it, so I'll skip it, if that's OK.
(2) Although it sure would be fun to take all those Republicans in the
US to Oz and watch them writhe as they tick 'Liberal'.
--
I have seen things you will never see.
sanguinevikings
Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:forhv01niam00n2fj...@4ax.com...
> My parents were both at heists. They didn't teach any deity,
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Christopher A. Lee
<postm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
>> 1941 Einstein: "people who say there is no God. But what really makes
>> me angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
Did Ford give a source for this?
Because it sounds like a fabrication. Is it one of Barton's? Einstein
wasn't prone to strawmen.
Al Klein
<ca...@optonline.net> said in alt.atheism:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:58:47 GMT, "Daniel T."
><postm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> 1941 Einstein: "people who say there is no God. But what really makes
>>> me angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
>
>Did Ford give a source for this?
>
>Because it sounds like a fabrication. Is it one of Barton's? Einstein
>wasn't prone to strawmen.
My sources give it as:
German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Hubertus zu Lowenstein around
1941. Quoted in his book, Towards the Further Shore, London, 1968,
156)
I have no idea whether Lowenstein is reliable, so take it for what
it's worth.
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Andy Groves
david ford wrote:
> Convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity
> of many varieties
Works for me.
Andy
zinnic
position?
John Wilkins
> Yep. My parents were both at heists.
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch.
And John tasted that it was good.
John Wilkins
And all those Australian liberals, who would need to vote Tory in the
UKoGBaNI...
I have to say I am extremely disappointed by maff's "Christian fascist"
riff. Ford is many things - a moron, a quote miner, ignorant, and so
forth, but I have no reason to think he's a fascist.
Calling people "fascist" when they aren't strictly speaking fascists is
a very dangerous thing. FOr a start, it devalues the term - when you
meet *real* fascists, what can you call them? Will you make the
connection with what the fascists actually did do, and prepare against
it? Just because someone is authoritarian, or revisionary in history,
does not make them a fascist.
We had a state premier who was autocratic and conservative. Some fool
wrote a letter to the editor arguing he was "worse than Hitler". So far
as I know, he had no brown shirts, no Krystalnacht, no Final Solution,
and whn elections were held and he lost, he went. He has been doing good
community work with depression-activism since.
This sort of hyperbole is deeply denigrative of the suffering of those
who did undergo fascist rule and atrocities. Let's get perspective -
ford is probably a YEC, definitely antiscience, and certainly
uneducated. He lacks understanding, but that doesn't make him fascist.
> --
>
> I have seen things you will never see.
Lt. Kizhe Catson
[snip some other stuff]
> I have to say I am extremely disappointed by maff's "Christian fascist"
> riff. Ford is many things - a moron, a quote miner, ignorant, and so
> forth, but I have no reason to think he's a fascist.
Maff has been getting even further over the top as time goes on. I
recall some almost-rational discussions with him some years back.
> Calling people "fascist" when they aren't strictly speaking fascists is
> a very dangerous thing. FOr a start, it devalues the term - when you
> meet *real* fascists, what can you call them? Will you make the
> connection with what the fascists actually did do, and prepare against
> it? Just because someone is authoritarian, or revisionary in history,
> does not make them a fascist.
>
> We had a state premier who was autocratic and conservative. Some fool
> wrote a letter to the editor arguing he was "worse than Hitler". So far
> as I know, he had no brown shirts, no Krystalnacht, no Final Solution,
> and whn elections were held and he lost, he went. He has been doing good
> community work with depression-activism since.
I'll confess to having once referred to a former provincial premier (of
similar character) as a "lying fascist". My father -- who was among
those who helped repel the onslaught of Fascism some 60+ years ago --
was a bit taken aback. (Not that Dad had any use for the guy either.
Verbatim quotes: "What he's done to the poor is just *evil*" and "I hate
the bastard").
> This sort of hyperbole is deeply denigrative of the suffering of those
> who did undergo fascist rule and atrocities. Let's get perspective -
> ford is probably a YEC, definitely antiscience, and certainly
> uneducated. He lacks understanding, but that doesn't make him fascist.
He's on record as being an OEC/IDist, though I can't recall him ever
being specific on the details[1][2]. But obtuse and bigotted -- definitely.
[1] Which is itself good evidence that he's an IDist.....
[2] No, I haven't got any Google URLs up my sleeve to support it. Who
do you think I am -- maff? ;-)
-- Kizhe
Christopher A. Lee
Wilkins) wrote:
>Nominated in the Revealing Typo category:
>
>> Yep. My parents were both at heists.
Hey, I can't type and it passed the spell checker.
Walter Bushell
"maff" <maf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, but they won the peace for a _long_ time. I remember going into
North Carolina, and seeing the "United Klans of (I forget what political
jurisdiction) Welcome You. (Welcome if you're white that is).
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Daniel Kolle
> PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE
> Since the American War of Independence and the
> French Revolution, an exaggerated desire for
> independence has characterized much of Western
> society.
And man, I gotta tell ya, it sucks. I am just begging for someone to
run every aspect of my life!
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
Robibnikoff
"Daniel Kolle" <DKo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mf8jv09qg6h7889k4...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:34 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
> thought hard and said:
>
>> PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE
>> Since the American War of Independence and the
>> French Revolution, an exaggerated desire for
>> independence has characterized much of Western
>> society.
>
> And man, I gotta tell ya, it sucks. I am just begging for someone to
> run every aspect of my life!
Care to meet my mother? :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Walter Bushell
5 finger discounts? Or is that masculine supremacists? Or perhaps from
the Church of He, from _The Mote in God's Eye", by Niven and Pourelle?
maff
In the '30s, most people also thought fascists were idiots and morons.
Who would have thought they'll come to power?
Of course, fascism also evolves especially after defeat.
isl...@earthlink.net
> I would have had to give up many
.......
.......
ewwwwwww... this is where I usually stick my fingers in my ears and
start shouting... LA LA LA LA LA!!!
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:32:54 -0000, "sanguinevikings" <sp...@spam.not>
> wrote:
>>
>>DJ Nozem <d...@pjn.qsrch.net> wrote in message
>>news:1sbgv0h4gdfhr351v...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:34 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip, Vitz his nonsensical "psychology" has been hacked into ugly
>>> little pieces often enough here on alt.atheism)
>>rcman R.I.P.
>>Where R = ripped & P = Pieces.
>>
>>BTW I had a father, he and my mum brought me up to think for myself and care
>>about the truth. I have always been an Atheist, and my Dad would never have
>>let anybody nail me to a lump of wood and leave me to die.
> Yep. My parents were both at heists.
Where they actually robbing the banks or were they simply innocent
by-standers?
/cue innocent look of puzzlement...
They didn't teach any deity, but
> taught me to think critically - so that when a fundamentalist teacher
> tried to push her deity I treated it like some kind of silly
> spot-the-flaw tall story game. For example when she asked me who
> created everything, I asked why it took a "who". Eventually she wrote
> to my parents accusing me of blasphemy and they laughed in her face.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
-------------------------------
The only product that Micro$oft could produce that *wouldn't* suck would be a
vacuum cleaner..
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
> wrote:
>>
>>DJ Nozem <d...@pjn.qsrch.net> wrote in message
>>news:1sbgv0h4gdfhr351v...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:34 -0500, david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip, Vitz his nonsensical "psychology" has been hacked into ugly
>>> little pieces often enough here on alt.atheism)
>>rcman R.I.P.
>>Where R = ripped & P = Pieces.
>>
>>BTW I had a father, he and my mum brought me up to think for myself and care
>>about the truth. I have always been an Atheist, and my Dad would never have
>>let anybody nail me to a lump of wood and leave me to die.
> Yep. My parents were both at heists.
Where they actually robbing the banks or were they simply innocent
by-standers?
/cue innocent look of puzzlement...
They didn't teach any deity, but
> taught me to think critically - so that when a fundamentalist teacher
> tried to push her deity I treated it like some kind of silly
> spot-the-flaw tall story game. For example when she asked me who
> created everything, I asked why it took a "who". Eventually she wrote
> to my parents accusing me of blasphemy and they laughed in her face.
Nantko Schanssema
>I have to say I am extremely disappointed by maff's "Christian fascist"
>riff. Ford is many things - a moron, a quote miner, ignorant, and so
>forth, but I have no reason to think he's a fascist.
>
>Calling people "fascist" when they aren't strictly speaking fascists is
>a very dangerous thing. FOr a start, it devalues the term - when you
>meet *real* fascists, what can you call them? Will you make the
>connection with what the fascists actually did do, and prepare against
>it? Just because someone is authoritarian, or revisionary in history,
>does not make them a fascist.
Well said.
We've been doing quite a bit of remembering, last week, what real
*real* fascists do, when in power. Nothing to joke about.
regards,
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
Mark K. Bilbo
Christopher A. Lee lumbered into the room and mumbled:
>
> Yep. My parents were both at heists.
Did they ever get caught?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
John Vreeland
maff wrote:
> david ford wrote:
> > maff wrote:
> > > david ford wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Where's the evidence for Christian fascism, scum?
> >
> > What exactly is [m]"Christian fascism"?
> >
>
> Christian fascism was the one which was defeated in the Civil War,
> Christian fascist scum. If you can't convince majority of the
> Christians of the superority of Christian fascism, how're you going
to
> convince the rest of World?
Is this some sort of inside joke? It's been going on for quite a while
now but I'm not getting it. Could some kind stranger point me to a
reference post on this odd highway?
david ford
uppermost paragraph denoted by: |>
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960808013047.848B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
do a control - f / "find" for: year
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709000645.26045D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
on a related subject:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911232100270.17626-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
control - f / "find" for: 4.5
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0308272213.31d1ab4b%40posting.google.com
> definitely antiscience, and certainly
> uneducated.
[JW]"certainly uneducated" E.g., you had to tell me about "the eclipse
of Darwinism."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981004230112.14734B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
> He lacks understanding,
E.g., about irrelevant quotations.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990209225344.1109299A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Also e.g., about Patterson's talk.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970920002714.25773B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
T0E good for taxonomy?: 1973 Fairbairn (a creationist); 1982 Colin
Patterson; 5 November 1981 Patterson
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402161147.29fee40e%40posting.google.com
> but that doesn't make him fascist.
>
maff
david ford wrote:
[...]
So you admit that you're a scientifically illiterate Christian fascist?
david ford
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>>1941 Einstein: "people who say there is no God. But what really makes
>>me angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
I messed up the date. Redone:
Einstein to zu Lowenstein: "people who say there is no God. But what
really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views";
1941 Einstein; Lenin's becoming an atheist; 1922 Lenin; Bertrand Russell
never taken in by Soviet regime; 2005 President Bush inaugural speech
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-35nbd1F4pm3jiU1%40individual.net
> The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should
> transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both
> the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense
> arising from the experience of all things,
A "natural theology," eh, in contrast to the "revealed theology" seen in
the Koran or Bible?
Sort of like the "natural theology" IDists are advocating?
Mitchell Coffey
[snip]
"Fascist" is an invidious pejorative that should seldom or ever be
used. You're assuming, however, that Maff intends to be taken
literally when he calls Ford a Fascist. I don't believe he does.
Maff used smilies when calling Ford a Fascist and the like, at first.
Since Ford routinely uses invidious pejoratives of a most un-Christian
nature, I take Maff's purpose has been to throw back at Ford some of
Ford's own method. It's a common rhetorical device. I don't think
it's right for him to use the word even in jest, in this case, but I
don't share your extremity of disappointed with Maff.
Also, it is probably a mistake to assume anything about the extremity
of Ford's politics or methods. Nothing should surprise you now.
Mitchell
John Wilkins
I still think it devalues the term to misuse it this way, and any
rhetorical effect maff may have employed is long gone.
Mitchell Coffey
Wilkins) wrote:
I agree. But one differentiates between murder and manslaughter. I'd
be more disappointed if Maff was actually claiming Ford was a Fascist,
rather than trying to make a joke or point.
The Maff/Ford exchanges are of interest because their routine
rhetorical practices are so similar, and Ford, at least, has no idea
that this is the case. These practices I'll call The Method of the
Untranslated Private Language, and The Method of the Unexplicated
Proof Text (Ford combines the later with The Method of the Promiscuous
Proof Text; while Maff has definite notions about what constitutes
authoritative opinion, Ford quotes anything which seems, based on an
brief ocular scan and translated into his private tongue, to support
his most recent point or perhaps his next or some other or something.)
Maff also has a sense of humor. Ford's jocular capacity is limited to
using an opponent's spell checker meltdowns as an excuse not to
address an issue.
I no long like David Ford, you might guess.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:12:32 -0000, "sanguinevikings" <sp...@spam.not>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:dford3-35qm...@individual.net...
>>> maff wrote:
>>> > david ford wrote:
>>> > [...]
>>> >
>>> > Where's the evidence for Christian fascism, scum?
>>>
>>> What exactly is [m]"Christian fascism"?
>>A tautology.
>
>That's why there must be so many Quakers and Methodists in the Liberal
>Democrat Party Over Here (1).
>
>Lizz 'Liberal as in the UKoGBaNI, not as in Australia (2)' Holmans
>
>(1) There's a good polysci explaination, but I'm not sure all you
>folks would be fascinated by it, so I'll skip it, if that's OK.
>
>(2) Although it sure would be fun to take all those Republicans in the
>US to Oz and watch them writhe as they tick 'Liberal'.
There was a brief moment in the late-30s when many American
conservatives must have suffered bafflement as to why all those
Socialists were decamping to Spain to fight for the Republicans.
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
This leads me to speculate that perhaps ford is a counterexample to
Wittgenstein's Private Language argument, although it could perhaps be
said that ford makes nothing but mistakes, so we know he is always not
following a Rule...