I have little doubt that it is going to end up being all about Shelby.
Sigh... I hope not, dear MS (peace to you!). I hope we can all just stick to the issues/topics... and not start calling others crazy or delusional or things like that. But, like you... I seriously doubt it.
Time magazine had an article relating that variations in genetics can shift the visible spectrum of some people, slightly into the infared or towards ultraviolet. Perhaps not to the degree of a honeybee or pit viper but a shift outside the norm nontheless. Interesting idea, and one that might explain a great many ghost stories,...;)
Is it possible that this can apply to hearing, as well, dear Twitch (peace to you, as well!)? That while many LOSE hearing... some gain an even more acute ability? I realize someone would say, "But that's due to genetics, SA, not God/holy spirit." I would have to counter, though, that holy spirit very much deals with genetics: blood... and particularly Abraham's. I digress, so that no one mistakes me for trying to make this "about" me, etc. I've always said I have no problem with science, itself...
If I follow you, you're saying atheism is no different than religious belief.
Oh, no, not at all, dear Unshackled (again, peace to you!). There absolutely are some differences. MANY differences. Primarily differences. BUT... there are several SIMILARITIES... and it's the SIMILARITIES that seem to be the things each point the finger at the other about. And BOTH tend to want to deny that. Which is one of those similarities. That's what I'm saying.
And also, that the more well-known atheists argue amongst themselves.
Nope (SA scratches head)... didn't "say" that, either. I agree that they don't absolutely AGREE among themselves... which is what many often (accurately) accuse religionists of. But that seems hypocritical to ME. I mean, the "pot calling the kettle black" thing. But my comments regarding those who argue among themselves had to do with the LESSER known (perhaps even unknown) atheists. For instance, those who commented on the article. I find that interesting... in light of the comments often made HERE... about how "christians argue among themselves." Both camps engage in this. So, why does one look down its nose at the other for it?
And further, that these well-known atheists like Stephen Hawking carry themselves with an air of superiority that if you don't think like them, then you're just common folk. In a nutshell, is that it?
Nope, again. My comments regarding the well-known atheists, as made in the other thread... is that I had more respect for them that I did the lone theologian. The physicists asked valid questions to which the theologian pretty much pontificated... on nothing. The "air of superiority" comes from the LAYfolk. Much as it does with religion. I mean, in both camps, even the experts try to be civil. It's the layfolk to throw barbs, ad hominems, chuck red herrings, lash out, attack... curse... and damn. Yet, can't answer pretty basic questions. Given the similarity in the conduct of the FOLLOWERS... neither camp appeals to me.
If so, I would say the attitude of superiority may apply to some, but not all.
Yes. But I would say that of BOTH camps. I, however, don't get how the two keep pointing the proverbial finger at one another... while saying, "Our hands are clean!" When they're not.
There isn't a brush big enough to paint them all that color.
But isn't that the SAME thing religionists say??? So, see, here you've got me... standing with one on the right and one on the left... and the PROPOGANDA and rhetoric I hear coming from BOTH... sounds the same: experts at the top using "big" words... with "little people"... who can't explain the big words themselves telling others, "You MUST listen to them and believe what they say because THEY know and YOU don't." I truly CANNOT see the difference.
I can see how some would feel Richard Dawkins can appear that way, he has a certain disadvantage of being a rather starchy, dry Brit.
I'm not the kind to have problems with the messenger, dear one. If I have a problem, it's with the message. Which is why I raised the questions I did regarding Dr. Hawking's theories. I also stated that the show I saw reminded me of a sermon... given the wordage and propoganda. Unfortunately, some were blinded by their preconceived notions of me... and what they THOUGHT I was saying.
I wouldn't apply that to Stephen Hawking though. Christopher Hitchens? Yes, but that's what's great about him…he does it with a swagger that is infectious, IMO.
Please see above. Again, I listened... with an open mind... to the panelists. And, again, I had more respect for the physicists and what they said, than for the theologian and what HE said (actually, didn't say). The show did show, however, that not ALL physicists are atheists... which that camp wants us to respect ("We're not all alike!"). Okay, cool. But not all believers are religionists. Yet, I don't see that same "respect" being offered in the other direction.
I would hope they would argue amongst themselves. That keeps each other honest, peer review and continually scrutinizing with critical thinking is the backbone of the scientific method.
Yes. And I am so glad you feel that way. I think those who have a problem with that are closed-minded, dogmatic, and fearful. But I have to ask, because maybe you can help me understand: why it is scandalous front-page news here... when "christians" argue amonst themselves??? Not that I believe that happens (my definition of "christian" is different than others)... but I'm just sayin'. Why is it a problem when ANYONE else argues, discusses, disagrees, what have you... among [what others believe to be] themselves? I personally think it's hypocritical...
As for atheism being no different than religious belief
But that is an erroneous assumption on your part, dear one...
I'll use Sam Harris' words from that article:
The most common impediment to clear thinking that a non-believer must confront is the idea that the burden of proof can be fairly placed on his shoulders: "How do you know there is no God? Can you prove it? You atheists are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalists you criticise." This is nonsense: even the devout tacitly reject thousands of gods, along with the cherished doctrines of every religion but their own. Every Christian can confidently judge the God of Zoroaster to be a creature of fiction, without first scouring the universe for evidence of his absence. Absence of evidence is all one ever needs to banish false knowledge. And bad evidence, proffered in a swoon of wishful thinking, is just as damning.
This is SO true! And, again, both camps play this tit-for-tat game! So, please... don't think I let religionists off the hook, either. Surely you've seen that I will discuss with THEM... and THEIR hypocrisy... as I will a non-believer, atheist, agnostic, or what have you.
I hope this clarifies, dear Unshackled. I think confusion comes in when people "skim" a post and THINK they know what was stated. That's why I tend to take comments to ME line by line: so that I can SEE what the person has stated... and respond to THAT... and not to what I THINK he or she stated. Which sometimes results in very long posts, yes, but I can usually respond with confidence that I didn't jump to wrong conclusions or misstate/misunderstand the poster.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,