Beautifully stated, Fran. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:58 PM, frantheman <[email protected]>wrote:
> I don't follow you all the way on this, Orn; I think you're demanding > something from Jacoby which this article isn't intended to produce - a > reasoned apologia for her own definition of atheism. I see the article > as an unfortunately necessary prelude to such an endeavour, something > which probably couldn't be conveyed in such a context. > > I remember as a young teenager in the early 70s coming across a pop- > Christian book entitled, "The God I don't believe in." [The author, > John Powell, a Jesuit former professor of theology, ironically died > recently while under investigation in a number of sex-abuse cases.] In > it, as far as I remember, he argued against various pictures of God, > as vengeful, stern, etc. - generally, fundamentalistic, "old- > fashioned" views of God (very much a happy, huggy, pop-psychology > view, typical of the immediate post-Vatican-II optimism among many > Catholics of the time [a reflection, at least in part, of the general > Zeitgeist], before the traditionalists started to reassert control and > began their programme of trying to put the toothpaste back in the > tube). In one sense, Jacoby is trying to do much the same thing; clear > away misconceptions regarding the positions of many non-theists. > > One point I will grant you, she probably IS preaching to the choir. In > my experience, most (Christian) theist apologists are not really > interested in understanding the important nuances involved in most > well-argued non-theistic positions. Sadly, most seem to have an agenda > which has more to do with converting their opponents or stigmatising > them as immoral, inhuman or evil. > > Francis > > On 7 Feb., 19:08, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > “I disagree, Orn; I have heard each of the points she mentions > > verbatim from > > members of this list. For that reason alone, I thought she wrote a > > robust, > > albeit reactionary, article on these points.” – CJ > > > > What exactly do you disagree with Chris?...You agree that her piece > > was reactionary. I agree that it was ‘robust’ if one uses vigorous, > > rough, crude, boisterous, rich etc. as how the term is used. However, > > if you mean it to mean “ strong enough to withstand intellectual > > challenge”, this may be so IF one accepts anecdotal evidence as being > > ‘strong enough….’. > > > > Returning to our original claims, perhaps you are suggesting that she > > supported her beliefs somehow somewhere. Perhaps you are suggesting > > that her style was not an appeal to the/her people. Perhaps you don’t > > find her words to be memes that many atheists project upon the world. > > Perhaps you see some sort of analytical rigor in her work. I don’t see > > it in any of these ways. Thus, I find it extraordinarily lacking when > > it comes doing “a good job of dispelling some of the …[myths] > > regarding the faithless.” Of course, perhaps for some, doing ‘a good > > job’ means preaching to the choir? Difficult to tell. > > > > On Feb 7, 8:47 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I disagree, Orn; I have heard each of the points she mentions verbatim > from > > > members of this list. For that reason alone, I thought she wrote a > robust, > > > albeit reactionary, article on these points. > > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 7:17 PM, ornamentalmind < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > “I thought this was a very interesting and informative read, which > did > > > > a good > > > > job of dispelling some of the pervasive untruths and misperceptions > > > > regarding the faithless. Thoughts?” – CJ > > > > > > I started a detailed deconstruction and analysis of her piece and, > > > > after almost an hour gave up due to the extraordinarily large > quantity > > > > of confused, opinionated and totally unsupported beliefs she was > > > > presenting. At first I had hoped to have some true meat to deal with… > > > > and perhaps even a lucid and accurate list. Sadly, I find it > > > > extraordinarily lacking. Yes, without presenting my specific > > > > criticisms I too can be charged with similar proclamations by > opinion. > > > > However, hopefully, if carefully examined, most can see how this > > > > appears to be more of a reactionary piece…appealing to the people > > > > using common memes rather than anything of either literary or > > > > analytical rigor. It certainly does nothing at all like doing “a good > > > > job of dispelling some of the…[myths] regarding the faithless.” Would > > > > that it be otherwise! We atheists could use some unassailable clarity > > > > and logic when it comes to such issues. Sadly, Ms. Jacoby exhibits > > > > neither. > > > > > > On Feb 6, 3:06 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 1COM, thanks! That worked. :-) > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 9:26 am, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I just clicked on the link in the first post of this discussion > (Feb. > > > > > > 3rd) and it took me to the article, which is dated Feb.2nd 2010. > Try > > > > > > this link: > > > > > http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/02/a... > > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 4:04 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sadly, I got to the link long after the day whatever the > article was > > > > > > > had been printed...and can't find the original. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 5, 11:10 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the article is well written and that her views > may be > > > > > > > > representative of many atheists. However, I have encountered > a > > > > > > > > plethora of atheists who speak as if they believe the > majority of > > > > > > > > people who believe in God are fundamentalist creationists or > rabid > > > > > > > > jihad'i terrorists; who talk down to the believers in the > audience > > > > and > > > > > > > > tell them what fools they are, then, when accused of trying > to > > > > > > > > "convert" us to their belief say, "I don't care what you > believe." > > > > I > > > > > > > > am tired of being lumped in with the foolish people who try > to get > > > > > > > > their literal interpretations of Genesis incorporated into > science > > > > > > > > curricula. (I believe in evolution and that science is as > important > > > > as > > > > > > > > religion to the advancement of civilization, thank you.) I > think > > > > they > > > > > > > > give religion a bad reputation, just as the more aggressive > and > > > > self- > > > > > > > > righteous atheists give atheism a bad rep. I have no problem > with > > > > > > > > sharing ideas in a logical and open-minded fashion, but if > you > > > > > > > > disagree, support your argument with facts and logic, not > with > > > > > > > > diatribe and polemic. [Sorry, this rant was brought on by > some > > > > > > > > threads inhttp://www.philosophyforum.com] <[ :-)= Rich > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2:29 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/02/a... > > > > > > > > > > > I thought this was a very interesting and informative read, > which > > > > did a good > > > > > > > > > job of dispelling some of the pervasive untruths and > > > > misperceptions > > > > > > > > > regarding the faithless. Thoughts?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
