Comments for TheWarfareIsMental http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b Take It Or Leave It Mon, 21 May 2012 00:56:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on A Legitimate Question by cl http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/2012/05/19/a-legitimate-question/#comment-9086 cl Mon, 21 May 2012 00:56:27 +0000 http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/?p=4983#comment-9086 It depends who you ask. Many cosmologists think the current state of affairs testifies strongly in favor of theism, in particular, the Biblical narrative—and no honest person can deny that they are correct about two crucial elements: in the beginning there was nothing, and the first significant universal event was light. Of course, if one is an atheist, they're forced to just write this off as a lucky guess, but you already know I ain't buyin' it... :) <blockquote>The steady state model supported materialism.</blockquote> How so? It depends who you ask. Many cosmologists think the current state of affairs testifies strongly in favor of theism, in particular, the Biblical narrative—and no honest person can deny that they are correct about two crucial elements: in the beginning there was nothing, and the first significant universal event was light. Of course, if one is an atheist, they’re forced to just write this off as a lucky guess, but you already know I ain’t buyin’ it… :)

The steady state model supported materialism.

How so?

]]> Comment on Why I Said Skeptical Theism Is For The Birds by Stephen R. Diamond http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/2012/04/19/why-i-said-skeptical-theism-is-for-the-birds/#comment-9085 Stephen R. Diamond Sun, 20 May 2012 22:51:31 +0000 http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/?p=4833#comment-9085 "–that experience is logically necessary to understand that something is “evil”–" I should say <b>know</b> rather than <i>understand</i>, since I think the possible distinction was the subject of a disagreement with Admoriens. “–that experience is logically necessary to understand that something is “evil”–”

I should say know rather than understand, since I think the possible distinction was the subject of a disagreement with Admoriens.

]]> Comment on A Legitimate Question by Stephen R. Diamond http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/2012/05/19/a-legitimate-question/#comment-9084 Stephen R. Diamond Sun, 20 May 2012 22:46:09 +0000 http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/?p=4983#comment-9084 But there's a reason closer to your heart, cl. One of the questions where you might expect science to be invoked is cosmology, and the way most cosmologists interpret the evidence, it's fairly agnostic between atheism and theism (allowing pantheism and deism as forms). This was not always the case. When the steady state theory was dominant, it was cited in such arguments. The steady state model supported materialism. I think this history rebuts those who say scientific developments have no bearing--that they are <b>always</b> agnostic. (It's somewhat interesting that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists; wheras, it seems to me that agnosticism is modal for astrophysicists.) But there’s a reason closer to your heart, cl. One of the questions where you might expect science to be invoked is cosmology, and the way most cosmologists interpret the evidence, it’s fairly agnostic between atheism and theism (allowing pantheism and deism as forms). This was not always the case. When the steady state theory was dominant, it was cited in such arguments. The steady state model supported materialism.

I think this history rebuts those who say scientific developments have no bearing–that they are always agnostic. (It’s somewhat interesting that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists; wheras, it seems to me that agnosticism is modal for astrophysicists.)

]]> Comment on Why I Said Skeptical Theism Is For The Birds by Stephen R. Diamond http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/2012/04/19/why-i-said-skeptical-theism-is-for-the-birds/#comment-9081 Stephen R. Diamond Sun, 20 May 2012 21:05:19 +0000 http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/?p=4833#comment-9081 Let me make the point stronger. <blockquote>the point is simple and clear: <b>sometimes</b> it takes somebody “wronging” you to realize that you’ve wronged others. (added emphasis)</blockquote> To sustain your position as I understand it--that experience is logically necessary to understand that something is "evil"--you need <b>always</b> instead of "sometimes." Sometimes could be justified in that we don't need experience for each incident. But you must assert--again, unless I misunderstand--that experiencing harm is a necessary part of learning that something is harmful. This doesn't correspond to the current understanding of "moral" development; more importantly, it can't be justified, as a matter of logic, by an account of moral knowledge anchored in experience. Let me make the point stronger.

the point is simple and clear: sometimes it takes somebody “wronging” you to realize that you’ve wronged others. (added emphasis)

To sustain your position as I understand it–that experience is logically necessary to understand that something is “evil”–you need always instead of “sometimes.” Sometimes could be justified in that we don’t need experience for each incident. But you must assert–again, unless I misunderstand–that experiencing harm is a necessary part of learning that something is harmful. This doesn’t correspond to the current understanding of “moral” development; more importantly, it can’t be justified, as a matter of logic, by an account of moral knowledge anchored in experience.

]]> Comment on Why I Said Skeptical Theism Is For The Birds by Stephen R. Diamond http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/2012/04/19/why-i-said-skeptical-theism-is-for-the-birds/#comment-9080 Stephen R. Diamond Sun, 20 May 2012 20:59:13 +0000 http://www.thewarfareismental.net/b/?p=4833#comment-9080 "It only shows that they were motivated to use it. " Should be <b>unmotivated</b> “It only shows that they were motivated to use it. ”

Should be unmotivated

]]>