Comments on: Blithering Blog-viations: Dinesh D’Souza Does the Dervish Dance Of The Delusional…

By: God is for Suckers! - Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US. Making fun of believers

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:41:26 +0000

[...] I cannot bring myself to care much about the blatherings of Dinesh D’Souza (so ably dissected at Pharyngula and God is for Suckers!). Idiocy and ignorance aren’t news, folks. It’s a snooze fest. [...]

By: God is for Suckers! - Commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky. Illuminating and watchdogging the widespread attempts to institutionalize the theocratic rule of the US. Making fun of believers

Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:16:59 +0000

[...] As I’ve pointed out before, the teleological is the more difficult of these discussions, at least on a superficial level. Some simple investigation usually lays the majority of these items to rest. [...]

By: Eve

Eve — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:18:21 +0000

I’ve heard of Flew – but it was here on GifS that I was introduced to him. Before? “Lo conocen en su casa,” as we say in the Dominican Republic (”they know him at home,” meaning “never heard of him”).

You know, once you’ve cottoned on the framing these sleazoid supernaturalists indulge in so heavily on the subject of atheism, you just can’t give their ~~ramblings~~ writings the same modicum of attention, consideration, or respect. This guy’s entire piece is one big not-collecting-stamps=hobby statement!

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:53:23 +0000

ChuckA:

I maintain it was instituted by medieval theologian/philosophers to intentionally demonize rational thought; and by extension…any real questioning, critical thinking.

Ummm…it was instituted by the RC’s, advocatus diaboli, used to argue against canonization.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=devil%E2%80%99s%20advocate&gwp=16

By: bernarda

bernarda — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:24:50 +0000

krystalline, You are right about that. I started out trying to create a sort of chicken-or-egg comparison and I drifted into infinite regression.

I should have separated them and presented it all more clearly.

By: ChuckA

ChuckA — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:17:55 +0000

Krystalline Apostate…
As to your:
“Just to play the devil’s advocate (is there a secular word-play similar to that?)”

Yeah…”devil’s advocate” is a really old pet peeve of mine.
I maintain it was instituted by medieval theologian/philosophers to intentionally demonize rational thought; and by extension…any real questioning, critical thinking. In other words, by associating any critiques, even very valid ones, with the “Devil”, the power of the critique is defused by making it seem rebellious, disobedient or potentially even…blasphemous. A kind of subtle scare tactic?
I may be wrong of course. In any event, I personally, and purposely, substitute…
“REASON’S ADVOCATE”; but then nobody really pays any attention to my rather obscure opinions!
Will I be forever anathematized?

By: Krystalline Apostate

Krystalline Apostate — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:31:11 +0000

Bernarda – the nutshell version of what you’re describing is called ‘Infinite regression’. There are numerous arguments against teleology, all of them good, most of which I’m familiar w/.

Flaky:

Although pretty damning, the most devastating counter argument isn’t the perceived lack of communication between the brain and some ’soul’ or whatever, because it might be that we just can’t detect it.

Well, that happens to be a counter-point most theists use when confronted w/the resounding silence of their deity.
Not provokin’, just sayin’.

What really brings down mind/body dualism is the fact that changes in the brain can alter the aspects of human behaviour that we take to be the very essence of being a human, i.e. our personality, rationality and other such qualities.

Just to play the devil’s advocate (is there a secular word-play similar to that?), altering the circuitry so the phone doesn’t work, doesn’t mean the signal ain’t there.
Heehee.
VL:

I’ve heard of Flew as the originator of the term “No True Scotsman.”

Well, I’m still gonna use it, regardless of who came up w/it.
A good point isn’t tossed out because the originator did a 180 degree turn.

By: Stupid Git

Stupid Git — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:17:41 +0000

I think the religious texts of the world are the real groundwork for non-belief. Being raised Catholic I was told loads of real far-out fairytales in Sunday school and church and those fairytales are what led to my dismissal of their reality – not some philosopher I’d never heard of.

Thanks for your great post and for defending us atheists from baseless insults by the likes of Dinesh D’Souza and his proselytizing and paranoia.