Sad to say, but we've experienced an incident of Internet Vandalism and cyber-stalking. In response I've updated the moderation of this blog such that all comments must be approved by me. I didn't want to have to do this, but the person who posted here (whose posts have now been removed) is not a reasonable person on any terms. He's dangerous, as those from other blogs connected with UD know full well. Right now he's displaying pent up anger and the vilest (in a juvenile sort of way) attacks on individuals, but such pent up anger has a potential to get worse.
I obviously welcome views of those who disagree with me, and as Elizabeth has done with her blog, The Skeptical Zone, I will create a certain area where more objectionable posts are placed for those who desire to read them. However, certain people will not be welcome if they show signs of stalking and/or attacking persons, rather than signs of interest in opposing viewpoints.
I obviously welcome views of those who disagree with me, and as Elizabeth has done with her blog, The Skeptical Zone, I will create a certain area where more objectionable posts are placed for those who desire to read them. However, certain people will not be welcome if they show signs of stalking and/or attacking persons, rather than signs of interest in opposing viewpoints.
A sad but predictable development . . .
ReplyDeleteTested, works, BTW.
ReplyDeleteRegarding The Turek link; He's only proving the point. Thanks for posting the link. Highly relevant.
ReplyDeleteBrandon:
ReplyDeleteTurek is right, indeed.
Those who see themselves as assertive about their atheism need to think twice about when their behaviour crosses the line to enabling or actually being hostile, rude, snide and abusive or even slanderous.
Such misbehaviour also underscores that far too much of modern atheism is little more than than age rebellion projected up against God. Far from being truly scientific, it is flying the false colours of science -- indeed, holding science hostage to a priori materialism [read above as well] -- to rationalise what is fundamentally a worldview and life agenda built on rage, not the vaunted reason.
Indeed, it is no accident that it can be shown that evolutionary materialism is both inherently self-referentially incoherent, and inescapably amoral.
Some serious re-thinking and calming down are in order for the so-called New Atheists.
GEM of TKI
F/N: Plato's remark in The laws, Bk X, 2350 years ago, are ever so apt (and apt to be forgotten):
ReplyDelete_____________
>>[[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . .
[[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >>
_____________
No prizes for guessing why we don't commonly hear this analysis by Plato. KF
KF,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late response in moderation. I've been working on other matters - promoting my classical music compositions for one.
What comes to mind is Richard Dawkins' own attempt to change some of the format of his own blog I think about a year ago, and the amount of vitriol from commenters specifically aimed at him. His response was surprising given the amount of vitriol he encourages on his blog, and the amount he himself dishes out.
These people are clearly angry. We need not pay much mind to them except when such anger gets dangerously targeted towards individuals. That draws the line. However, as with the case with William Lane Craig, it clearly does not end up in their favor.
I was watching a series of videos on YouTube yesterday - specifically a rather biased biographical documentary on Madalyn Murray O'Hare, featuring interviews with (among others) Phil Donahue and her son William Murray, who became a born again Christian.
What the documentary failed to perceive - and what many atheists fail to perceive is that God's purposes work even indirectly in the life of non-believers, as one of her legacies was giving birth to a man who has had a huge impact on the spread of Christianity.
All she did with her own efforts was to help end school prayer, which has had little impact on Christianity in America. So she ended up doing the opposite of what her efforts intended. Dawkins' efforts in my view will do just the same.