Buttsplicer, once again I bow to your ass.
--- Stu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" > buttsplicer@ wrote: > snip > > Stu, did you *read* what was in the post? The > writer > > is addressing people *who call themselves > atheists*. > > > > And he doesn't appear to be a religionist himself, > > so both parts of your formula fall apart. > > > Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens all make arguments > about the absurdity of > the label atheist. The only place I have seen the > word used was by > religious people as a pejorative. This writer was > clearly reacting > against these writers. > > Harris makes an effective argument saying that it is > much like the term > racist. Racist is a clear term to identify a KKK > member, but there is no > term to identify those who fight racism. Because > not believing in > racial superiority is not a characteristic of any > one group. > > If you really want I can send you some links. I > understand this article > is not your view anyway. I just wanted to point out > this fact. > Incidentally, there are atheist organizations but > the writers being > discussed have criticized these organizations for > the same misuse of > terms. > > > > The interesting part of that piece to me was his > > point that free will, at least in Western > countries, > > is a notion that originated with religion. Western > > secularists (including some on this very forum) > > tend to tout free will as if it were antithetical > > to faith, when in fact it is the very *basis* of > > faith. > > > Free will does not necessarily follow from faith. > Augustine, Calvin, > and Luther (and many others) all argued strongly for > the doctrine of > pre-determination. Their interpretation of the > bible suggests that God > has chosen who will receive salvation. We can not > override god's will. > In the eastern religions pre-determination is an > integral part of the > philosophy, with some schools arguing that > enlightenment is the only > case when a person exercises there freedom as they > break the wheel of > birth and rebirth. And even within these schools > many times > enlightenment is not a product of free will. > Instead the Dharma fully > overrides freewill. > > If I remember my philosophy history correctly it was > Thomas Aquinas who > proposed the terminology of free will. And it has > become a dominant > feature of the modern church. The concept did its > part to help create > the Magna Carta and other doctrines moving towards > recognizing > individual rights. > > Modern secularists on the other hand don't all agree > on the question of > free will as well. However, I am asserting that the > modern approach to > free will is better explained in the context of > freedom of individual > expression. This takes it out of the realm of > metaphysics and puts it > in the more practical realm of politics. Sartre > best illustrated this > in "Being and Nothingness" when he questioned why > some Frenchmen would > not resist the Nazi invasion during WWII. He felt > that his neighbors > who went along with the Nazis abandoned their > authentic existentialist > selves and the distinctively human gift of free > will. > > In all cases, free will is adopted and rejected by > people regardless of > their proclivity towards faith. However, I am ever > suspicious of > anyone's arguments if they involve themselves with > faith. If they are > willing to accept one notion without adequate > evidence what then of > their other notions? Sounds to me like a lot of > guesswork. > > s. > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
