Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"The Causes of Atheism" Written by James Spiegel (Page 1)
[b]"The Causes of Atheism" Written by James Spiegel
“Book Review: Making of an Atheist Written by Richard Park on 18 February 2010. Dr. James Spiegel, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University, has recently published a book called The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief – and it is powerful. This book, un ...[text shortened]... com_content&view=article&id=474:book-review-making-of-an-atheist&catid=54:richard-park&Itemid=77[/b]
“Book Review: Making of an Atheist Written by Richard Park on 18 February 2010. Dr. James Spiegel, Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University, has recently published a book called The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief"
1) "… and his use of Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shift is but one example. He uses this notion to illustrate just how it is that atheists and theists can see the other as ‘delusional’ without the one party or the other recognizing its own delusion – how such incompatible worldviews could coexist in the same world. This incommensurable difference in paradigms accounts for what Spiegel calls “paradigm-induced blindness” which further entrenches a person in her own worldview."
2) “Building largely off of Paul Vitz’s Faith of the Fatherless (1999) and Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals (1988), [i]Spiegel shows how so many famed and influential intellectuals (philosophers, economists, novelists and more) were often motivated toward their atheism either by markedly poor father figures (or the absence of such) or a strong desire to justify their immoral lifestyles – or both.”
3) “Unbelief (atheism) leads to immorality and their immorality clouds their thinking, leading to misconceptions and further unbelief. In the end, atheism, argues Spiegel, is a matter of the will, not of the mind.”
4) “He uses this notion to illustrate just how it is that atheists and theists can see the other as ‘delusional’ without the one party or the other recognizing its own delusion – how such incompatible worldviews could coexist in the same world.
Note: Here are four provocative quotations which may merit further discussion. (additional excerpt quotes to follow)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by SuzianneFGM is of course abhorrent. And is far worse in terms of damage done as a
First off, GB, let me start by saying I do not wish to derail your thread, but something in this thread caught my eye and I wish to comment.
I am sorry that I did not follow this thread from the beginning. Because I missed the initial discussion in this thread about circumcision and someone made the comparison between circumcision and female genital mut ...[text shortened]... y is. Some girls do not survive the experience, it's that bad. Simple circumcision, it is NOT.
matter of course than male circumcision.
However the fact that FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean that
male circumcision [when performed on infants and children without some overriding
medical concern] isn't wrong or evil.
There are all kinds of arguments both ways about whether it's better to be circumcised
or not [and the norm in this country is certainly not to be circumcised] however
it's still a highly invasive and non-reversible medical operation being performed
on people who are unable to give consent. If as an adult a person decides that
they are better off circumcised then they can have the op.
While the risks of circumcision are low, they are not trivial either.
And you can indeed suffer the end [or more] of your member being severed for the
rest of your life.
There is no generally applicable good overriding medical reason to perform a circumcision
on an infant and thus you are performing irreversible elective cosmetic surgery with
risks of considerable potential life long downsides on a minor who is unable to consent.
That is absolutely and irrefutably wrong period.
The fact that FGM is worse just highlights how unremittingly awful FGM is.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI absolutely and vehemently disagree. See my last post for details.
Suzi, please feel free to pursue any of Jim Spiegel's quotations, findings and conclusions. I'm not surprised with your depths of knowledge and insight; you've subtly revealed a few in other forums on relevant subjects over the years. Thanks.
Edit Note: Yes, I do have some measure of understanding of the horrors of female mutilation from both literat ...[text shortened]... ale circumcision at birth seems the best parental decision, belief restrictions notwithstanding.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginally posted by twhitehead
So, Grampy, are you ready to answer my questions yet? You keep mentioning 'discussion' but seem to avoid actually discussing the contents of the quotations you post.
So, Grampy, are you ready to answer my questions yet? You keep mentioning 'discussion' but seem to avoid actually discussing the contents of the quotations you post.
"Very smart people can come to wrong conclusions." -PsychoPawn January 29, 2014 Thread 157670 (Page 3)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAhh but there's the rub...
So disagree. Nobody here would presume to deny you your freedom to decide what's best for you and your family.
I view it as not only morally wrong, but morally impermissible to allow
circumcision of infants without an overriding medical justification.
And thus support and encourage the making of such practices illegal,
everywhere.
Morality isn't relative, it applies to everyone.
This is not live and let live.
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDo you consider that an answer to my questions? Or are you as usual attempting to avoid answering?
Originally posted by twhitehead
So, Grampy, are you ready to answer my questions yet? You keep mentioning 'discussion' but seem to avoid actually discussing the contents of the quotations you post.
"Very smart people can come to wrong conclusions." -PsychoPawn January 29, 2014 Thread 157670 (Page 3)
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNice theory, and it may look good on paper, but I believe Freud's best quality was his skill as a technician. He became the "father of modern psychoanalysis" for a reason: psychoanalysis (and related techniques, such as hypnotism) remains one of the best methods to discover psychological problems and the causal links of psychological disturbance. But in my opinion, just because he discovered one of the best tools does not mean he was one of the best at actual analysis. In fact, he was substandard at this. His 'psychosexual' theories set modern psychology back years. His 'dream analysis interpretation' probably resulted in more psychological problems being made manifest than being resolved. He was a sexist hack at worst, and merely a good technician at best.
Of course, a principal figure to whom Vitz’s observation applies is Sigmund Freud,whomaintained that religious belief arises out of psychological need.According to Freud, people project their concept of a loving father to the entire cosmos to fulfill their wish for ultimate comfort in a dangerous world.However, it was this same Freud who developed the ...[text shortened]... sappointment in and resentment of his own father unconsciously justifies his rejection of God.
While examining any link between atheism and lack of a father figure may seem interesting on the surface, and might at first blush seem significant, it's only by way of accepting Freud's theories as reality that make them seem reasonable. I don't think there's any 'beef' there. For another thing, we're talking about a mode of thinking employed by literally millions of people, any significant sample size would be tens of thousands for every million, at least. The handful of famous people examined by this theorist is just not enough.
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySince most of Grampy Bobby's posts are cutting and pasting the work of others, I sometimes wonder of he goes to a website like this to get some of his "own" material.
Random composites are probably desirable if not essential for the sake of viewpoint variety and levity to balance hard questions and, at times, mutual discovery of unpleasant answers and acid truths.
Originally posted by wolfgang59
WTF
🙄
watchout4snakes.com/wo4snakes/Random/RandomSentence
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovak😲 It's like listening to the great man speak!
Since most of Grampy Bobby's posts are cutting and pasting the work of others, I sometimes wonder of he goes to a website like this to get some of his "own" material.
watchout4snakes.com/wo4snakes/Random/RandomSentence
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudge"This is not live and let live." -googlefudge
Ahh but there's the rub...
I view it as not only morally wrong, but morally impermissible to allow
circumcision of infants without an overriding medical justification.
And thus support and encourage the making of such practices illegal,
everywhere.
Morality isn't relative, it applies to everyone.
This is not live and let live.
What is "this" then?