The One Armed Surgeon

The One Armed Surgeon (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Faith] >> General Faith

Message

oldmethuselah -> The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 11:52:22 AM)
Suppose you needed to undergo a complex surgical procedure and lived near a medical research university where there were a plethora of well-qualified surgeons both willing and able to assist you. With all due respect to our own university custodians, would you intentionally seek out the only one-armed custodian at the uni and request that he carry out the operation? (because he had cleaned the boards in many departments and knew a smattering of medical words from each) No? Then wherein lies our fascination with the half-baked, incomplete reasonings of our various visitors that (either by design or intention) refuse to engage in a cohesive discussion? I refer, of course, to my atheistic friends - I readily admit that, as an atheist, I was extremely grateful that someone did not give up on me - but I am not referring here to honest questions posed by honest minds that want answers... but rather, to those who endlessly dodge and weave to avoid ANY logical conclusions, and use non-sequiturs and complete OPPOSITE views when bobbing from one topic to another. SURELY they fall under the category mentioned in Proverbs that describe the folly of trying to answer such foolishness. (Of course, as an atheist, I used to bob and weave too, but, as a mathematician, such offenses to logical consistent thinking finally caught up with me and - almost as it were - forced me to recognize the intentional gaps and games I was playing.) My question HERE is more about the CHRISTIANS who come here and treat patently inane atheistic arguments with incalculable deference and a respect they do not warrant. This goes beyond honouring the person as a human being which we should do at all times, and I think, actually does a disservice to them by giving them the impression that their "fragments" form some kind of cohesive pattern. Perhaps you should tell the one armed custodian, as kindly as you can, that... um ... you're going to go elsewhere for your surgery! Indeed, while honestly sharing how much in need of "The Surgeon" you are, you could introduce him to that selfsame "Great Physician" as well, rather than playing along telling the poor chap that he really can perform delicate surgery himself.

mvic -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 12:25:16 PM)
You know ... I was thinking the same thing; but I can't articulate it as well as you. Of course, atheists, agnostics and whatever else are welcome here on this Forum. But I've never understood why Christians spend so much time, effort, and arguments trying to convince them to see the truth. At the end of the day, both parties are entrenched in their positions and neither will give an inch. May I ask a question: In the whole history of this Forum has one atheist ever turned to God by reading and debating here? Has one Christian ever given up his Christianity and turned away from God? It reminds me of a saying about dust, sandals, shaking off ... you know the one I mean!

Liveloved -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 12:31:00 PM)
I knew you were a mathematician, OldM! funny. . . Now you're showing your temperament. So that's why we deal with people differently. And, thank God, we do. The ones you send running, I can rescue. And vice versa. right? And while I don't disagree with what you're really saying, I'm just a mother dispensing some cod liver oil.[:'(][:D]

SinnerSaved -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 1:52:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldmethuselah My question HERE is more about the CHRISTIANS who come here and treat patently inane atheistic arguments with incalculable deference and a respect they do not warrant. This goes beyond honouring the person as a human being which we should do at all times, and I think, actually does a disservice to them by giving them the impression that their "fragments" form some kind of cohesive pattern. quote: ORIGINAL: Liveloved The ones you send running, I can rescue. And vice versa. right? And while I don't disagree with what you're really saying, I'm just a mother dispensing some cod liver oil.[:'(][:D] As Christians, we are likened to living stones being built into a spriitual house (1 Peter 2:5). Some of us are big, ugly foundational stones that underpin the house. Some of us are big plain functional stones which essentially protect the building from the weather. Others are beautifully chiselled stones which adorn the building, giving it beauty and shape. Some stones are smaller but still essential, being part of the overall structure. We are all different in the way we are used, and thank the Lord for it....

Liveloved -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 3:11:22 PM)
quote: As Christians, we are likened to living stones being built into a spriitual house (1 Peter 2:5). Some of us are big, ugly foundational stones that underpin the house. Some of us are big plain functional stones which essentially protect the building from the weather. Others are beautifully chiselled stones which adorn the building, giving it beauty and shape. Some stones are smaller but still essential, being part of the overall structure. We are all different in the way we are used, and thank the Lord for it.... Well said, SinnerSaved! It is always amazing how many in the church do not understand this very important aspect of body life---and especially what Paul says about the giving more honor to some because of their need! Oh my, I'm sure we've all seen such abuse. That's why I pray that God give me His eyes, His heart, His mind and thoughts so I don't live out of the flesh. The wonderful thing is that I had someone who I really didn't care for one time in the church. . . so I asked God to change MY heart toward this man. And He did. He gave me a deep love and appreciation for this man. Even though we are no longer in the same church, when he sees me, he has a big hug because he knows he is loved by me. And it is all, definitely a God thing. Yes, He can give us the love and appreciation we need for those in the body. He did it for me and I am so very thankful!

deermousie -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 3:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mvic In the whole history of this Forum has one atheist ever turned to God by reading and debating here? C.S. Lewis did. Not on this forum, obviously, but in talking and debating with his fellow dons. Just like us, only eruditer. Paul said he was all things to all men, that he might win some of them. Even one out of a million is one soul brought home, and God provides the quickening in their dead souls and sometimes we provide the truth in their ears. The tiresome battle is worth it if one person turns around, don't you agree? What other work can you do with eternal results? There was one guy here who had a ton of so-called scientific questions and red herrings just last week, and when his exhaustive list had been answered, he asked a final question: could he be saved? Was it worth it to me, digging through all that mess to get to what he really wanted to know? I think so. [:)] Paul told Timothy to always be ready to give an explanation for the hope he held in God. Jesus told us to teach all the nations (the first part of the Great Commission). That means we have to open our mouths, regardless of the consequenses, and God quickens their souls or doesn't. His job. Mine is to talk, and let the chips fall where they may. May God be glorified!

mvic -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 4:14:34 PM)
Hi Deermousie, I agree ... if only one person reading the posts here were to turn to God then it would be worth all the posts on all the Forums that exist on the World Wide Web. However, I am not convinced that when a confirmed atheist writes/reads here he does so with the intention of finding God. Maybe I got it wrong - if so may God forgive me.

4IMPersuaded -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 5:17:55 PM)
Having never been an atheist, you may be able to confirm or rebut my perception so here it is... Mnay atheistic or agnostic individuals, even some in the church assume that all Christians are right wing, judgmental, narrowminded prudes that are bent on controlling the country and squelching everyone's fun in favor of their stale, ritualistic religion. Any time I am confronted with an individual such as this, I am going to love them and treat them with the utmost respect. This will not just confound them, but it will on some level plant the seed. I will not likely get to harvest that seed but I am still responsible to show Jesus in me to anyone I come upon. I have recently seen a doctor friend of mine turn her life over to Jesus. She says it was primarily born of the fact that I just loved her-- no judgment. I engaged her occasionally in theoretical theological discussion, but for the most part I just lived my life in a way that was honest and transparent. I am not tooting my own horn here, I'm just giving you a reason for why I engaged her. She would not have seen the love of Jesus in me that changed her opinion of what "religion" is without being engaged. Obviously, I didn't have the strength to walk this long road-- it actually IS Jesus in me, the HS working out my salvation, but had I not engaged her in the throws of her intellectual inconsistencies, she might have missed the point-- or at least I would have missed the blessing as someone else answered the call to obedience.

SonInMe1 -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 8:53:38 PM)
I think, telling an athiest about Jesus is more important than winning a debate. In those discussions I try not to be arguementative...as that is what most athiests want anyways...to push our buttons to prove we are just what they think we are...and too often, they just reaffirm what they thought christians were...before they came here. Now with christians I'll argue all day long....[:D]...but that is my entertainment...lol. I am just not sure it is...productive....to call athiests names. To threaten them with hell. To beat them over the head with the bible...a book, to them, they don't believe anyways. Too many christians are so stuck in their churches and church lives and their church language and their church...worship...they are no earthly good. They can't talk to unsaved people. They get offended WAY too easily and become the judgemental pharesee...without even trying. An athiest coming here is an...opportunity. A challenge to us on how we witness. You might win the arguement...and lose a witness.

oldmethuselah -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/27/2008 11:32:11 PM)
Thank you all so far, for taking the time to comment. If I may give an example of the "balanced answer" I am thinking of.... Suppose an atheist quotes from Richard Dawkins works and states in this forum that "atheists and scientists love to be proven wrong and rejoice when their theories are dismantled, since it means they are closer to the truth" THREE possible responses might be from... THE HARSH RELIGIONIST... who roundly accuses the atheist of being the spawn of Satan with a corrupted mind spouting lies... (I had some of those when I was an atheist) THE SYCOPHANTIC CHRISTIAN... who politely acknowledges that these paradigms of scientific thought must exist and tries to suggest that perhaps if they were Christians they would be even more loving and open to correction..blah blah... THE LOGICAL CHRISTIAN... who says "well, certainly from my experiences at Unversity A (cite a real geographical place you, the Christian, attended) and University B (another real place you, the Christian, attended) I never came across such well-adjusted people, nor have I witnessed this wonderful openess to correction in the the twenty years since when I have associated with university colleagues.... HOWEVER.....(and this is the difference) Please Tell us of your personal university experiences with such colleagues...please state WHERE and WHEN you yourself saw such things in action. Now, this THIRD request does not put the atheist down, it merely asks for factual information, it is neither demeaning nor kowtowing. In fact, PERSONALLY, it was exactly this third kind of Christian, an English Law Student I met, who kept encouraging me to examine and validate my wild atheistic assumptions.... He was KEY to helping me see that I was grasping at straws to try to hide my - oh so fragmented - notions that excluded God... AND HE NEVER ONCE made me feel I was not worth his time (or God's)...

Liveloved -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/28/2008 12:59:20 AM)
quote: Please Tell us of your personal university experiences with such colleagues...please state WHERE and WHEN you yourself saw such things in action. Amen! It is about relationship building---we can talk doctrine or this belief or that belief forever. But when we get down to the personal experiences and how those beliefs/thoughts have formed, then we have something to work from. And in the midst of it, the person is affirmed. And that makes a big difference. Thanks for sharing this!

atheistinpeace -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/28/2008 4:06:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldmethuselah Thank you all so far, for taking the time to comment. If I may give an example of the "balanced answer" I am thinking of.... Suppose an atheist quotes from Richard Dawkins works and states in this forum that "atheists and scientists love to be proven wrong and rejoice when their theories are dismantled, since it means they are closer to the truth" THREE possible responses might be from... THE HARSH RELIGIONIST... who roundly accuses the atheist of being the spawn of Satan with a corrupted mind spouting lies... (I had some of those when I was an atheist) THE SYCOPHANTIC CHRISTIAN... who politely acknowledges that these paradigms of scientific thought must exist and tries to suggest that perhaps if they were Christians they would be even more loving and open to correction..blah blah... THE LOGICAL CHRISTIAN... who says "well, certainly from my experiences at Unversity A (cite a real geographical place you, the Christian, attended) and University B (another real place you, the Christian, attended) I never came across such well-adjusted people, nor have I witnessed this wonderful openess to correction in the the twenty years since when I have associated with university colleagues.... HOWEVER.....(and this is the difference) Please Tell us of your personal university experiences with such colleagues...please state WHERE and WHEN you yourself saw such things in action. Now, this THIRD request does not put the atheist down, it merely asks for factual information, it is neither demeaning nor kowtowing. In fact, PERSONALLY, it was exactly this third kind of Christian, an English Law Student I met, who kept encouraging me to examine and validate my wild atheistic assumptions.... He was KEY to helping me see that I was grasping at straws to try to hide my - oh so fragmented - notions that excluded God... AND HE NEVER ONCE made me feel I was not worth his time (or God's)... OM, finding it a little creepy that you're not letting go about scientists like being shown to be wrong! You last raised this point in the thread about the paranormal and ghost hunting, apropos of absolutely nothing in that thread, though presumably to continue what we had tried to talk about in the thread on IQ and atheism, which had been closed. I explicitly invited you to start a new thread about each of the topics you had introduced into the ghost hunting discussion. You've put the topic of scientists into a post that seems like a bit of a general criticism of atheists, but I'll respond to your points. Firstly, in the thread on IQ and atheism (which was closed and deleted by the moderators), I did acknowledge that I could think of a few notable scientists with what looks like an arrogant enough streak to be apparently more closed-minded than they should be about their theories turning out to be wrong. That's an important point; I did not say that every scientist ever wants desperately to be wrong so they end up eventually correct. That would make no sense anyway; there's a big distinction between wanting to be wrong and enjoying being shown to be wrong. Secondly, please don't misquote me. The quote above, which I've put in italics, is not lifted straight from something I wrote. I'm 99% sure of that. That said, it broadly represents the sentiment I was trying to express, so let's plough on. Thirdly, as it's what you're so desperately after, I'll give you two places on a map: Oxford University, where the visiting professor in Dawkins's anecdote showed the Oxford-based academic why a particular theory of his was wrong (much to the delight of the local professor, who thanked the visiting American profusely, 'for he had been wrong these past 15 years', which in turn was much to the delight of the assembled students). And secondly, Princeton, NJ, where scientists working on quantum electrodynamics believe that their current theory isn't sound, and are trying to prove it wrong by experiment in order to help them draw up a better model. I trust this satisfies your request. It shouldn't though. Those two examples mean nothing. Nor do your two examples. Even if I had been utterly unable to name a single place or person, what would that mean? Would you walk away and say that my original suggestion is nonsense? To do so would be to commit the formal logical fallacy of proof by example. So I'm not sure what use any of these examples have. Think about it more generally, though. Given that science's raison d'etre is to discover what is true, what use would it be to someone to hold on to something that was demonstrably wrong? AiP

atheistinpeace -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon (6/28/2008 6:40:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldmethuselah Then wherein lies our fascination with the half-baked, incomplete reasonings of our various visitors that (either by design or intention) refuse to engage in a cohesive discussion? I refer, of course, to my atheistic friends - I readily admit that, as an atheist, I was extremely grateful that someone did not give up on me - but I am not referring here to honest questions posed by honest minds that want answers... but rather, to those who endlessly dodge and weave to avoid ANY logical conclusions, and use non-sequiturs and complete OPPOSITE views when bobbing from one topic to another. I should add that your somewhat personal attacks on those who disagree with you doesn't really do much to help. You say that the resident atheists around here (and given that your later post referred specifically to a discussion you and I add, I will assume you're referring at least in part to me personally) 'refuse to engage in a cohesive discussion'. When you and I have engaged each other recently, I did my best to engage in cohesive discussion by 1) responding to arguments you had made, and 2) when your points had nothing to do with the thread in question, openly inviting you to start a thread on the topic at hand. It wasn't me who introduced completely irrelevant topics into the discussion. Further, when I did respond to your points, there was no direct reply forthcoming from you. For example, when you brought up the point (in the ghost hunting thread) that an apartment full of contraptions probably belongs to an inventor (rather than the contraptions forming themselves), I acknowledged your point and gave a brief explanation for why your argument wasn't convincing - without once lowering myself to suggesting your arguments were 'half-baked' or 'patently inane' (your words). You ignored my response. Similarly, you made the valid point that just because someone hasn't experienced something, it doesn't mean it isn't real - I replied to this at length (as it was germane to the topic of the thread), though you ignored this (and I think swerved on to the topic of amoebas... why, I don't know). I enjoy debating on these threads, and many posters here are a pleasure to debate with. But please don't accuse me of things I am quite clearly not guilty of, and which you yourself may have done. Thanks, AiP --- edited for content

oldmethuselah -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon - The Gestalt (6/29/2008 2:12:10 AM)
Ah... atheistinpeace... do you know this is the SECOND time I have made the mistake of thinking you had dropped out of a discussion simply because I had not seen your response within a couple of days. I apologize, and in future, for you, I will observe a longer waiting period. It is probable that you actually have a life and a job that occupies your time, and unlike a retired math teacher, cannot attend quite as quickly to something as off the beaten track as a discussion forum. I hope you will forgive me for my impatience! Now, in keeping with THIS thread, my response to your last two posts should neither "write you off" nor "let you off".... So, for the benefit of those readers who had not been privy to the particular assertions of Richard Dawkins that you had alluded to, I had specifically mentioned during my time on staff at the University of Surrey (UK) and later at the University of Toronto, as well as my dealing these last many years with university grads, I had not PERSONALLY observed this joyous openess to correction that Dawkins had described, and I had asked you if you had PERSONALLY experienced a different scenario. Now, if from your PERSONAL experience at university you had witnessed such an openess and joyous embrace of truth when a theory was proved wrong, I HEARTILY CONCUR that you will have most handsomely met my request! If, on the other hand, you are merely reporting something that Dawkins SAYS occurs at Oxford, then I must, in truth, say you have NOT demonstrated such a case. Thus, on the above point, I only ask - for the benefit of the readers - that you state WHICH category your Oxford example falls in - Personal Witness or Second Hand Account. Now, as to OTHER questions in general - and the reason that THIS thread is titled "One Armed Surgeon" I have attempted to suggest that atheistic answers on ONE topic bear little or no relation to atheistic answers on another... that is to say there is no OVERALL cohesiveness between the fragments (no "Gestalt view" if I understand my German correctly) Atheists may clearly jump from one topic to another like butterflies with no reference to a central core of philosophy, but Christians - and indeed - a Evangelical Christian forum cannot (if it is to remain logical) Thus, while you find it frustrating that I would ask you to clarify your beliefs on a variety of topics (and you have requested repeatedly that I start "separate" threads for each) I suggest that your answers ACROSS THE BOARD be Consistent and non-contradictory. If I may use an ANALOGY (and this is NOT an attempt to start a thread on either ABORTION or CAPITAL PUNISHMENT)... if ANY PERSON, in a thread on Capital punishment, stresses the absolute sanctity and importance of human life as a reason to ban capital punishment, and then, the SAME PERSON, in a thread on Abortion, stressed the absolute right of the mother to terminate a fetus at any stage, I - as a logician - will cry foul - logic error or, more foundationally, "logos error", since "logos" is the root word of "logic" and refers to an offence against reasoning at a most basic level. BTW, I do not ONLY ask ATHEISTS to exhibit a consistency and a Gestalt approach.... and I have been kicked out of "Christian" forums before for pointing out logic errors... When a "Christian" Church says that has a 100% belief in a non-white Christ's teaching, our own sinful nature and EVERY individual's need for repentance and then institutes a policy of BANNING non-whites from entry to their premises, (as was the case of Philip Yancey's church when he was growing up (the book "What's so amazing about grace?")... then I cry "logos error". When "Muslim" men, visit brothels performing a "marriage" ceremony just before using the services of a prostitute then a "divorce" ceremony right afterwards, I cry "logos error" When Tibetan priests state they have taken a vow to own nothing in this world then display Rolex watches and gold chains they possess, I cry "logos error" Likewise, when I (now a Christian) ask God to forgive me for promises I have broken and then wish that God will punish severely those who have broken promises to me, I cry "logos error" So atheistinpeace, I hope you will not feel "personally attacked" when I ask consistency from you... it's just that "one armed surgeons" are not the best ones to choose for a delicate surgery and, by analogy, philosophies lacking cohesion must also have their shortcomings pointed out.

oldmethuselah -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon - Rhetoric (6/29/2008 3:30:24 AM)
As to my penchant for using emotive words such as "half-baked", while it may form a fairly accurate word picture that I want to convey, I do agree that such rhetoric is easily offensive and that "incomplete" could, academically, serve the same purpose, likewise "inane", I think, could be replaced with "irrational" - Would it then be reasonable to ask that any rebuttals ALSO be purged of powerful emotive words? You see, it would be illogical for an atheist to insist that a Christian strip from his/her own vocabulary all powerful words, while retaining the right to use them him/herself! [:D] While I was still an atheist, it was important that I thought of Christians as bland colourless creatures, quite deficient in intellect and artistry, and it may be worthwhile for you to examine why you insist on bland speech from your "opponents". (this last in quotes since I am NOT, in truth, your enemy)

atheistinpeace -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon - The Gestalt (6/29/2008 5:16:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldmethuselah So, for the benefit of those readers who had not been privy to the particular assertions of Richard Dawkins that you had alluded to, I had specifically mentioned during my time on staff at the University of Surrey (UK) and later at the University of Toronto, as well as my dealing these last many years with university grads, I had not PERSONALLY observed this joyous openess to correction that Dawkins had described, and I had asked you if you had PERSONALLY experienced a different scenario. Now, if from your PERSONAL experience at university you had witnessed such an openess and joyous embrace of truth when a theory was proved wrong, I HEARTILY CONCUR that you will have most handsomely met my request! If, on the other hand, you are merely reporting something that Dawkins SAYS occurs at Oxford, then I must, in truth, say you have NOT demonstrated such a case. Thus, on the above point, I only ask - for the benefit of the readers - that you state WHICH category your Oxford example falls in - Personal Witness or Second Hand Account. Second Hand. I had said in the closed thread that I didn't study science at college/university level. But as before, I was making a more general point about scientists being big enough to admit that the truth is more important than their own reputation, if you see what I mean. I really don't think this discussion is going to get us anywhere though, so I suggest we drop it here. quote: ORIGINAL: oldmethuselah Now, as to OTHER questions in general - and the reason that THIS thread is titled "One Armed Surgeon" I have attempted to suggest that atheistic answers on ONE topic bear little or no relation to atheistic answers on another... that is to say there is no OVERALL cohesiveness between the fragments (no "Gestalt view" if I understand my German correctly) Atheists may clearly jump from one topic to another like butterflies with no reference to a central core of philosophy, but Christians - and indeed - a Evangelical Christian forum cannot (if it is to remain logical) Thus, while you find it frustrating that I would ask you to clarify your beliefs on a variety of topics (and you have requested repeatedly that I start "separate" threads for each) I suggest that your answers ACROSS THE BOARD be Consistent and non-contradictory. If I may use an ANALOGY (and this is NOT an attempt to start a thread on either ABORTION or CAPITAL PUNISHMENT)... if ANY PERSON, in a thread on Capital punishment, stresses the absolute sanctity and importance of human life as a reason to ban capital punishment, and then, the SAME PERSON, in a thread on Abortion, stressed the absolute right of the mother to terminate a fetus at any stage, I - as a logician - will cry foul - logic error or, more foundationally, "logos error", since "logos" is the root word of "logic" and refers to an offence against reasoning at a most basic level. BTW, I do not ONLY ask ATHEISTS to exhibit a consistency and a Gestalt approach.... and I have been kicked out of "Christian" forums before for pointing out logic errors... When a "Christian" Church says that has a 100% belief in a non-white Christ's teaching, our own sinful nature and EVERY individual's need for repentance and then institutes a policy of BANNING non-whites from entry to their premises, (as was the case of Philip Yancey's church when he was growing up (the book "What's so amazing about grace?")... then I cry "logos error". When "Muslim" men, visit brothels performing a "marriage" ceremony just before using the services of a prostitute then a "divorce" ceremony right afterwards, I cry "logos error" When Tibetan priests state they have taken a vow to own nothing in this world then display Rolex watches and gold chains they possess, I cry "logos error" Likewise, when I (now a Christian) ask God to forgive me for promises I have broken and then wish that God will punish severely those who have broken promises to me, I cry "logos error" So atheistinpeace, I hope you will not feel "personally attacked" when I ask consistency from you... it's just that "one armed surgeons" are not the best ones to choose for a delicate surgery and, by analogy, philosophies lacking cohesion must also have their shortcomings pointed out. I share your position on the people you mention who clearly don't live by their own principles, or the principles they impose on others. I'm not sure I'd call that logic though... I'd label it simply as 'inconsistency' or 'hypocrisy'. Maybe it is a form of logic if their justification of their actions takes the form of 'I am a Muslim; Muslim men should not visit prostitutes; therefore, I will visit prostitutes'. But I think that's stretching it. Either way... 1) How does atheism equate to being a one-armed surgeon? I originally understood that as a way of representing atheism's 'not having all the answers', rather than its internal inconsistency. 2) I don't believe I've contradicted myself, or applied double standards. That seems to be the charge you're laying against me. Can you tell me when I've been incohesive (or inconsistent)? Tell me, and I'll gladly explain either why two positions aren't actually inconsistent, or I'll retract one of them. quote: ORIGINAL: oldmethuselah While I was still an atheist, it was important that I thought of Christians as bland colourless creatures, quite deficient in intellect and artistry, and it may be worthwhile for you to examine why you insist on bland speech from your "opponents". (this last in quotes since I am NOT, in truth, your enemy) I don't insist on bland speech at all! I'd just prefer to keep the discussion civil. It's perfectly possible to write vividly while being polite. AiP

oldmethuselah -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon - The Gestalt (6/29/2008 7:46:02 PM)
Well said, young Jedi! Your honesty, most admirable, is.[:D] More later when our wedding fortnight is over and our British guests have returned to the "Land of Hope and Glory"

oldmethuselah -> RE: The One Armed Surgeon - The Gestalt (8/5/2008 10:18:53 AM)
quote: 1) How does atheism equate to being a one-armed surgeon? I originally understood that as a way of representing atheism's 'not having all the answers', rather than its internal inconsistency. 2) I don't believe I've contradicted myself, or applied double standards. That seems to be the charge you're laying against me. Can you tell me when I've been incohesive (or inconsistent)? Tell me, and I'll gladly explain either why two positions aren't actually inconsistent, or I'll retract one of them. quote: ORIGINAL: oldmethuselah While I was still an atheist, it was important that I thought of Christians as bland colourless creatures, quite deficient in intellect and artistry, and it may be worthwhile for you to examine why you insist on bland speech from your "opponents". (this last in quotes since I am NOT, in truth, your enemy) I don't insist on bland speech at all! I'd just prefer to keep the discussion civil. It's perfectly possible to write vividly while being polite. Well, I'm back! (sort of - cause I'm busy writing a sci-fi spoof.. but more of that elsewhere) All my English visitors have returned to their ancestral homes and my son is settling down to the life of a married man! ROFL Anyway, AIP hope you have been having a good summer... your questions... a) "not having all the answers" and b) "internal inconsistency" the "one armed surgeon" metaphor works for BOTH in the case of full blown atheism... for the following reason... IF it were just a case of only considering certain limited responses to question there need NOT be any inconsistency... rather like the wonderful book FLATLAND about 2 dimensional creatures who could not comprehend the third dimension... but within the TWO dimensions there can be perfect consistency and we do many useful math problems in that realm HOWEVER... the ATHEIST claims a level of "scientific integrity" that places the charge of "inconsistency" at his/her door .... because the ATHEIST'S CLAIM is to SPEAK FOR ALL REALITIES...(as some little potentate or "god" if you will) this is INCONSISTENT with open minded science that seeks answers NO MATTER what the result on pre-suppositions! You, AIP, were honest and said your belief in "atheistic delight in being proven wrong" was based on Dawkins report, and such an honest admission shows you are ALREADY made of far better stuff than those who, like Dawkins, make statements that fly in the face of the reality we, in the university community, see. I did not mean to accuse YOU PERSONALLY of a lack of integrity, I was referring to the classic ATHEISTIC claim of unbiased "science" Remember, I am "laying no charge" at YOUR doorstep, AND, having been where you may be now, I am certainly NOT your enemy. As to your need for "civil speech", I wonder if you would be happy with the following criteria as a definition of UNCIVIL speech? 1) Ad Hominem attacks (when atheists or theists accuse their opposition of mental incompetence or being in league with the devil respectively) 2) Linguistic Poverty (when foul language is used to bolster weak arguments) 3) Deviation (when a question is not addressed in the answer given) Keep up your enquiries, perhaps widen your reading scope a little, and we may talk again... in the meantime, perhaps you will review my sci-fi spoof (I will be starting a new thread on this shortly)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI