Doctor Scratch wrote: On and on it goes. In his discussion of the Alcock piece, Midgley feels compelled to mention that Alcock is "an amateur magician." I still can't figure out why this is relevant, though I'm sure both Midgley and the MI editorial team had their reasons.
May I suggest that the relevance is in demonstrating how a little knowledge can be dangerous. An amateur magician, who may have limited experience in being paid to practice magic, may not fully understand all of the nuances of Mormonism. A professional magician---such as Joseph Smith, Jr.---would have a richer background to draw upon when contemplating the Restored Gospel.
But otherwise, efforts to shed the religion label seem to me to be a bit callow, given the fact that secular humanists have not abandoned the idea that there is an atheist community and in this sense even a kind of church or assemblage of peoples.
And none of us would want to be callow, so we better acknowledge that any grouping of people, either by common traits or by their association with each other, is equivalent to a church.
The NRA, the National Geographic Society, your local community theater, that book club you're in, the Federalist Society, the Rotary Club, the AAA, and fantasy football leagues are all churches, too.
Once again - the tactic of dealing with difficult issues by breaking down the fences that separate words and concepts from one another, thereby rendering them useless to convey meaning
Examples:
"bar-room fortune-teller" and "prophet" "making stuff up while looking at a text you can't read" and "translating" "feeling emotional about some idea" and "knowing"
Now we have:
"any social group" and "church"
There will no doubt be many more.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
No kidding. I read the whole damned article, but I should have stuck with Scratch's succinct and spot-on summary. Not an auspicious beginning for the "Interpreter."
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Midgley wrote:One reason for not wanting to be known as a religion is that, in the United States, if secular humanism is seen as a religion, then it could face big trouble in the courts because of the First Amendment.
Struggling to phrase my question in a way that is permitted in the Terrestrial Forum, all I want to ask is this: what in heck is he talking about? He's suggesting that if secular humanism is a religion, it will be in "big trouble" because Congress can't make any laws respecting its establishment or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
Does he think humanists will be in big trouble if Congress doesn't make laws respecting the establishment of secular humanism?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
No kidding. I read the whole damned article, but I should have stuck with Scratch's succinct and spot-on summary. Not an auspicious beginning for the "Interpreter."
A legitimate complaint against various FARMS reviews was that it nitpicked at insignificant details rather than addressed the big issues. I was afraid that Scratch was doing the same thing here. But he wasn’t—this article is bad . In terms of simply making cohesive arguments, it wouldn’t deserve a passing grade in an undergraduate course.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Her blog is a personal blog without pretensions to "intellectual content," though her insightful posts are a hell of a lot more intellectually solid that Midgley's crappy post.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Analytics wrote:A legitimate complaint against various FARMS reviews was that it nitpicked at insignificant details rather than addressed the big issues. I was afraid that Scratch was doing the same thing here. But he wasn’t—this article is bad . In terms of simply making cohesive arguments, it wouldn’t deserve a passing grade in an undergraduate course.
I agree completely. When I first saw Scratch's post I also thought that he must be engaging in some of the same tactics that he criticizes, but this article really is atrocious. I strongly disliked his review of Grant Palmer's book, but I don't recall it being as poorly written as this (although it has been a long time since I read it). The line highlighted by Darth J is asininely stupid. A political science professor should know better than to say something that sounds more like an ignorant rant from the lunatic fringe of the religious right.
We should also remember that this is the guy who recently accused John Dehlin of somehow being involved in the accidental drowning deaths of two missionaries. I guess it just goes to show you that you can only let hatred consume you for so long before it poisons your soul . . .
it's weird that when he's describing atheists of old, it sounds exactly like my own world view.
Midge wrote:The conclusion is that one need not fear death, for it is ultimate liberation from this miserable world. While struggling to avoid pain, one need not be set upon by false notions of divine beings who have even more pain planned for disobedient mortals after their miserable deaths.
what a lovely summary.
the only thing missing is the belief that humans can make both the world and our own deaths less miserable. and for that we atheists must unavoidably look to our hero and leader Karl Marx, because no one else in history has ever suggested any ideas on how to materially improve the human condition.
Kishkumen wrote:Now that Daniel isn't being paid to act as editor, and he doesn't have a paid staff, the quality of the classic-FARMS output is suffering.
You would almost think these are posts on a discussion board, if it weren't for the length.
You know, Reverend, I wouldn't have thought to bring the money issue into the picture, but I suppose you're right. "If you're good at something, never do it for free." Or, rather, "If you have to do something for free, do a half-assed job."
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
lacking intellectual content
raunchy