"The Causes of Atheism"

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, of course. Now [b]that, I meant. 🙂

About the 'that says a lot about you' comment, I see it is a cultural thing. When used in America, it's not always said in a bad way, it can be either good or bad, depending on context. In this case, I was actually complimenting GF, so I couldn't see why anyone would think I was being negative. I understa ...[text shortened]... , I could ignore you or defend myself. I didn't think agreeing with you was a practical option.[/b]

About the 'that says a lot about you' comment, I see it is a cultural thing. When used in America, it's not always said in a bad way, it can be either good or bad, depending on context.

Well, I'm American. And in the context you said it, I can see where GF could rightly take it "in a bad way" and still be a "thinking person". Can you see that?

BTW what you actually wrote was "That it comes as news to you says much about you." rather than "that says a lot about you". And yes, it does make a difference. And no, it's not just semantics.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]About the 'that says a lot about you' comment, I see it is a cultural thing. When used in America, it's not always said in a bad way, it can be either good or bad, depending on context.

Well, I'm American. And in the context you said it, I can see where GF could rightly take it "in a bad way" and still be a "thinking person". Can you see that?
...[text shortened]... that says a lot about you". And yes, it does make a difference. And no, it's not just semantics.[/b]

You know what? Just forget it. You win. Whatever weird internal "thing" keeps you acting like this, I don't need to know. Anal retentive, OCD, whatever, I don't care. And btw, if you're American, then I can only assume you're aware of colloquialisms. And regional differences in speaking that drive some people nuts. Maybe it's just that this is the written word over the internet. I would hope that if we were in the same room having this discussion, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm not on an internet forum because I want every single thing I type analyzed six ways from Sunday EXCEPT the way I meant it and hearing infantile crap like "Well, that's not what you said". Neener, neener. Ok, great. I'm a horrible person. I drown kittens for fun. Happy now? Or would you like some blood, too?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I liked what you said about the American woman learning Mandarin Chinese, and I have known people like this also. She apparently had issues with wanting acceptance from people and so believed people when they were merely being kind and encouraging. I've had esteem issues in the past, so I am not one of these people who think I'm "all that", like a lot of Americans do. I do, however, speak in hyperbole at times and I can be effusive in my speech. But this is mainly a "public persona", I am usually much more serious and demure in private, mainly because I do not wish to be misunderstood or seen to be exaggerating.

Aaaaaaannnnd, I just realized that I don't even know why I'm telling you all this. 😳

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I've railed against the 'ugly' American stereotype for years until I took a good look around me and saw many who fit this stereotype to a T. It forced me to take a closer look at my own behavior just in case.

Speaking of making communication more comprehensible in an international forum, I tend to write more formally and avoid using slang because I know that many idioms tend to be harder for non-native speakers to grasp. After using this style, however, some ethnocentric Americans and Britons here have wrongly jumped to adverse conclusions about me personally.

I admit I am an "ethnocentric American" at times and I tend to conduct myself as if I am plain to understand to everyone at all times, American colloquialisms and all. It would behoove me to examine this style you speak of and see if I could improve my own writing for an international audience.

'I do, however, speak in hyperbole at times and I can be effusive in
my speech."
--Suzianne

I suspect that every woman knows when (cough) there are good times
to be 'effusive in (her) speech'. Unfortunately, I have noticed that when
women tend to use a more effusive ('too feminine' ) style of communication
in an office dominated by men, it may hurt their prospects at work.

This is also somewhat true here. Sometimes my style has run me afoul of the men here who aren't exactly overfond of the feminine style invading their water cooler conversations. The reactions have run the entire gamut from bemused tolerance to misogynistic sniping. I keep hoping they'll eventually just realize that's just the way I am and make allowance. I'm still waiting. 🙁

"...I just realized that I don't even know why I'm telling you all this."
--Suzianne

I hope it's because you (intuitively) trust that I'll be understanding and
do my best to give a fair hearing to anything that you have to say. 🙂

That must be it. 🙂 But I'll have pity on the menfolk here and reserve the rest for our PM conversation.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You know what? Just forget it. You win. Whatever weird internal "thing" keeps you acting like this, I don't need to know. Anal retentive, OCD, whatever, I don't care. And btw, if you're American, then I can only assume you're aware of colloquialisms. And regional differences in speaking that drive some people nuts. Maybe it's just that this is the wri ...[text shortened]... I'm a horrible person. I drown kittens for fun. Happy now? Or would you like some blood, too?

Yeah, while I still maintain your reply to me sounded like it was a put down,
I wasn't overly upset by it, and all I needed (and got) was a clarification
of the intended meaning.

ToO I think this is a time when you're being to interrogatory.
When [for example] RC is trying to weasel out of something he said and
is trying to deny then your approach and tenacity are absolutely appropriate.
I don't think it is in a case like this where there was an off topic misunderstanding
that was corrected.

Otherwise you get page after page of off-topic nonsense... Like we just got.

And yes I'm partly to blame for that.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]"The Causes of Atheism" Written by James Spiegel on 28 January 2010.

The Atheists Discussed thus far are all scholars. But, of course, not all atheists are academics. Like believers, they can be found in every sphere of society. In fact, some of the more well known atheists are celebrities. Actre ...[text shortened]... hp?option=com_content&view=article&id=469:the-causes-of-atheism&catid=96:bonus-content&Itemid=80[/b]

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)

"Now if Vitz’s theory is correct, we could expect many atheists we know to have a defective father. This naturally raises the question, What about the new atheists? Do they confirm this thesis?We know that Daniel Dennett’s father died in a plane crash in 1947, when Dennett was just five years old. As Vitz notes, losing one’s father at such a young age is particularly devastating, since it is during this developmental period that a child bonds with his or her father.

Christopher Hitchens’ father appears to have been very distant, so much so that Hitchens confesses, “I don’t remember a thing about him. It was all her [his mother], for me.” Tragically, when Hitchens was twenty-four his mother killed herself in a suicide pact with a lover. After his mother’s death,Hitchens says, “I no longer really had a family,” which is an especially sad statement considering his father was still alive. As for Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, there is very little information available regarding their relationships with their fathers. Harris, in particular, has maintained such a low public profile that personal information about him of any kind is scant.

Whatever causal role having a defective father plays in one’s becoming an atheist, Vitz has surely uncovered a significant aspect of the psychology of atheism. But why is the father relationship so important that its absence should create such an impediment to belief?We’ve already noted Freud’s inadvertent explanation in terms of the Oedipus complex. But from a Judeo-Christian perspective, the proper explanation goes back to human nature. Human beings were made in God’s image, and the father-child relationship mirrors that of humans as God’s “offspring.” We unconsciously (and often consciously, depending on one’s worldview) conceive of God after the pattern of our earthly father.

This is even encouraged in Scripture, as Jesus constantly refers to God as our “heavenly father. ”When one has a healthy father relationship and a father who is a decent moral model, then this metaphor and the psychological patterns it inspires are welcome. However,when one’s earthly father is defective, whether because of death, abandonment, or abuse, this necessarily impacts one’s thinking about God. Whether we call it psychological projection, transfer, or displacement, the lack of a good father is a handicap when it comes to faith.

Delivery To Depravity The eminent twentieth-century historian Paul Johnson describes his Intellectuals as “an examination of the moral and judgmental credentials of leading intellectuals to give advice to humanity on how to conduct its affairs.” Thus begins a 342-page historical expose that recounts behavior so sleazy and repugnant that one almost feels corrupted by reading it. Most disturbing are not necessarily the details of the sordid lives described by Johnson but the fact that the subjects are often regarded as intellectual heroes. Not merely successful people of letters in their day, they were scholars whose influence was, and continues to be, felt worldwide. They mastered their crafts as novelists, poets, playwrights, and philosophers and set forth ideals and values for ordering society.

So for most readers it comes as a bit of a shock to learn that so many leading intellectuals were selfserving egotists,whose ostensible interest in humankind generally was belied by their callous disregard for those nearest and dearest to them, especially familymembers. Among those examined by Johnson are Jean Jacques Rousseau—intensely vain and wildly irresponsible; sired five illegitimate children and abandoned them to orphanages, which in his social context meant almost certain early death Percy Bysshe Shelley—a chronic swindler with a ferocious temper; also an adulterer who, with three different women, fathered seven children whom he basically ignored, including one he abandoned to an orphanage, where the baby died at eighteen months Karl Marx—fiercely anti-semitic;

egocentric, slothful, and lecherous; exploitive of friends and unfaithful to his wife; sired an illegitimate son, whom he refused to acknowledge Henrik Ibsen—a vain, spiteful, and heartless man, caring only for money; an exploiter of women and contemptuous of the needy, even among his own family Leo Tolstoy—megalomaniacal and misogynistic; a chronic gambler and adulterer; a seducer of women and contemptuous of his wife Ernest Hemingway—ironically named, given that he was a pathological liar; also a misogynistic womanizer and selfdestructive alcoholic Bertrand Russell—misogynistic and a serial adulterer; a chronic seducer of women, especially very young women, even in his old age Jean-Paul Sartre—notorious for his sexual escapades with female students, often procured by his colleague and lover Simone de Beauvoir.

The upshot of Johnson’s book is that not only do many leading modern intellectuals fail to live up to their billing as moral visionaries, but their moral perversity should cause us to question the legitimacy of their ideas. This is because one’s personal conduct impacts one’s scholarly projects. And, as Johnson shows, the works of these intellectuals were often calculated to justify or minimize the shame of their own debauchery. Among the diverse vices that characterize the intellectuals studied by Johnson, brazen sexual promiscuity is the one recurring theme. So it is not surprising that most of these men explicitly rejected the Judeo-Christian worldview. Indeed, many of their scholarly and creative works openly challenged the values of this tradition, which condemns the sorts of lascivious behavior that dominated their lives.

Aldous Huxley, another significant modern intellectual, had much to say on this point. In the following quote he refers to a nihilistic worldview, but this could as easily be supplanted by Marxism, Sartrean existentialism, or Shelley’s vision of a religion-free society: "For myself as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Elsewhere in this same essay, Huxley is even more candid: "Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless."

As Paul Johnson argues, the philosophical systems and social ideals of many modern intellectuals were decided by their will to be immoral, not their quest for truth.They wrote the books they did to suit their personal lives, not vice versa. This point is well expressed by E. Michael Jones, who writes, “There are ultimately only two alternatives in the intellectual life: either one conforms desire to the truth or one conforms truth to desire. These two positions represent opposite poles between which a continuum of almost infinite gradations exist.” (2 of 4 to be continued)

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I didn't see where GF "insinuated that [you] are bigoted against dyslexic people" or anything of the sort, but I might have missed something. However it did seem that RO unfairly took you to task for it.