My problem with atheism

[_EAllusion]

Oh man. I'm surprised this escaped my radar. Have you read this book Mikwut? If so, why would you feel comfortable citing it as a source for anything?

[_mikwut]

Hi E,

What a strange comment. Hallucinations/delusions do the same thing. Most cognition, really, involves multiple areas of the brain so specific instances of it do not suggest or fail to suggest whether the content of an experience is "real."

Right, that's what I said too.

I didn't realize Denyse O'Leary had branched out from her central role in the intelligent design movement to this periphery now. I just pulled it up and it looks interesting. Every page I skimmed is wall to wall misleading, as is typical for the author. I also see the it is infused with the ID movement and skepticism in evolution as a central related thesis,

My interest was in the Carmelite nuns experiments conducted by the other author Mario Beauregard. Why do you find a need to disabuse the book that I took a rather benign quote from rather than what I actually said? Particularly when you seem to agree with the substance of the quote. ID is bit of red herring from the substance of my post don't you think?

mikwut

[_Bret Ripley]

We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.

Who is "we?"

The movers and shakers.

[_harmony]

Who is "we?"

The movers and shakers.

The movers and shakers of what?

[_EAllusion]

Right, that's what I said too.[

The book you are quoting in context is saying that it is suggestive that such experiences are real and cannot be accounted for by materialism. You appear to be saying the same, otherwise your direct quote of that passage isn't connected to any broader point you were making. So, no what's not what you said too.

ID is bit of red herring from the substance of my post don't you think?

You cut my quote off at the comma after which is the clause explaining the relevance of my comment.

I've read even more of the book since I wrote that, and as best I can tell it is a tour de force in inaccuracies, misleading use of quotes and information, and poorly drawn conclusions. Heck, right after the line you quoted the book goes on to argue that evidence of psi phenomena (telekinesis, ESP, etc.) demonstrates immaterialism and later makes the exact kind of case you'd expect for such a thesis. It also includes really bad math in at least one case. Why would you feel comfortable citing it as a source, especially since the coauthor is responsible for the study you are trumpeting? Source citations are supposed to carry authority, so citing something that is complete drivel undercuts that, don't you think? The implication here is that you do consider it a good source, but good God if that's true. And if your point was so mundane, you sure as heck wouldn't need that book to cite.

[_mikwut]

Hello E,

The book you are quoting in context is saying that it is suggestive that such experiences are real and cannot be accounted for by materialism.

Yes that is the broader context of the entire book.

You appear to be saying the same, otherwise your direct quote of that passage isn't connected to any broader point you were making. So, no what's not what you said too.

I quite clearly stated immediately after the quote your concerned with, "These experiences whether spiritual or mystical or in between happen to the vast majority of mankind. The atheist is never a blank slate after they pass infancy anymore than one could say they are a a-relationshipist. We swim in the experiences in our concrete lives, they are fundamental. If they are rejected it isn't because of a lack of belief but a rejection of a believing or at least open attitude toward the experiences." That is my broader point, which is much more clearly related to the rest of my post as well.

I've read even more of the book since I wrote that, and as best I can tell it is a tour de force in inaccuracies, misleading use of quotes and information, and poorly drawn conclusions. Heck, right after the line you quoted the book goes on to argue that evidence of psi phenomena (telekinesis, ESP, etc.) demonstrates immaterialism and later makes the exact kind of case you'd expect for such a thesis. It also includes really bad math in at least one case. Why would you feel comfortable citing it as a source, especially since the coauthor is responsible for the study you are trumpeting? Source citations are supposed to carry authority, so citing something that is complete drivel undercuts that, don't you think? The implication here is that you do consider it a good source, but good God if that's true. And if your point was so mundane, you sure as heck wouldn't need that book to cite.

First, let's remind ourselves you agree with the quote your so concerned with. Your attempting to distort the context of my quoting it to the entire book that includes a broad range of subject matter rather than just address the repeated theme of my post again stated here. Mario was selected as one of the one hundred pioneers of the 21st century - were you?

Second, do you have anything to say regarding my actual post's context? I can stipulate for you that you don't like the book because it disagrees with many of your beliefs.

mikwut

[_CaliforniaKid]

The way atheism is portrayed across the airwaves of the Internet feels cold and uninspiring.

Try the following options, instead:

1) Secular Humanism
2) Epicureanism
3) Ethical Culture
4) Unitarianism

None of these groups particularly believe in God. But instead of defining themselves by what they're against, they define themselves by what they're for.

[_Bret Ripley]

The movers and shakers.

The movers and shakers of what?

It's from the same poem as "We are the music makers":

World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
(From "Ode" by Albert O'Shaughnessy, as published in "Music and Moonlight" in 1874.)

See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ode_(O%27Shaughnessy) for the entire poem.

But see especially "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" (1971), where in response to Veruca Salt's indignant "who ever heard of a snozzberry!?" Wonka quotes O'Shaughnessy: "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams." Shade's response to zeezrom struck me as Salt-worthy, hence my Wonkish reply.

[_Blixa]

The movers and shakers of what?

It's from the same poem as "We are the music makers":

World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
(From "Ode" by Albert O'Shaughnessy, as published in "Music and Moonlight" in 1874.)

See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ode_(O%27Shaughnessy) for the entire poem.

But see especially "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" (1971), where in response to Veruca Salt's indignant "who ever heard of a snozzberry!?" Wonka quotes O'Shaughnessy: "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams." Shade's response to zeezrom struck me as Salt-worthy, hence my Wonkish reply.

Thanks, Bret. I was just about to answer but didn't want to step on the toes of your perfect and witty response.

It's one of the most quoted bits of poetry in existence: from Wonka to Elgar and beyond. That we even use the term "movers and shakers" is testament of how thoroughly some of its phrases have permeated our culture.

Wonka and the Brat

[_Bret Ripley]

Thanks, Bret. I was just about to answer but didn't want to step on the toes of your perfect and witty response.

It's one of the most quoted bits of poetry in existence: from Wonka to Elgar and beyond. That we even use the term "movers and shakers" is testament of how thoroughly some of its phrases have permeated our culture.

Wonka and the Brat

Thanks for the link, Blixa.

And for the record: you can never count on my responses' toes being witty, so please feel free to step on them any time.