[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
(snip) > > Atheists tend to be exceedingly unsophisticated > > metaphysically, so when a believer doesn't define > > God in similarly unsophisticated terms, in the > > kind of concrete detail that is the only approach > > the atheists know how to deal with, the atheists > > think the believer must be playing "dodgeball." Atheism seems to me to be the ultimate triumph of the ego. Also, it may have to do with the relationship of one's father, real life father, as to how one relates to a Heavenly Father. Ron Reagan for example(President Reagan's son), is a proclaimed atheist; He had a strained relationship with his father... Who- (from his recent released diary entries), turns out to be quite the spiritual guy. But his mom is best known for the phrase: 'Just say No', Kind of a negative... Perhaps the believers are just more child-like? Jesus said, something like that; And Maharishi always emphasized 'innocence'. So,...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Or perhaps a leopard skin pill-box hat." > > Probably my all time favorite Dylan song! Its a keeper. Especially when you are lost in Juarez and its Easter time too. And when you are wondering can it be easily done. If you just take everything down to Highway 61. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > Cool rap, Curtis. I'll take a break from grindhouse > > > movies and comment in a few places. :-) > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > 1. Is the Bible a different kind of book from other books created > > > > by man? How does he know? Once we decide that they are specially > > > > inspired by God, how do we know which parts we should take > > > > seriously and which are just metaphors? Do the parts that start > > > > with "God said" mean that God said those things? > > > > > > Not to even *mention* the question of what language > > > God was speaking when he said this shit? :-) > > > > I imagine it was in 2000ish teen girl dialect. "like my creation is > > sooo kewl. Im IMing you all about it." > > > > > > > If religious people would hand over the conception that their > > > > specific religious books are different from other books created > > > > by man, we would all just be back in the same human family > > > > together,living in a world of wonder to explore and hypothesize > > > > about. > > > > Does this imply that you don't believe there any humans who have seen, > > lived and become absorbed in the divine? (or any variation of such)? > > And that such persons, if they exist, are unable to write any books > > about it? > > > > I would think such a book, or books, in native form, with accurate > > translations, with no great councils or groups editing it to make it > > conform to their newish doctrine, might be somewhat distinct from > > regular books at B&N. > > > > > I think you've (possibly inadvertently) put your > > > finger on the whole issue here, Curtis. Many people > > > don't *want* a "world of wonder." Wonder *terrifies* > > > them. > > > > I am not so sure about that. > > > > wonder wonder who, oouu who > > Who wrote the book of love > > > > Tell me, tell me, tell me > > Oh who wrote the book of love > > > > I've got to know the answer > > Was it someone from above > > > > I wonder wonder who, be-do-do who > > Who wrote the book of love > > > > I, I love you darlin' > > Baby you know I do > > But I've got to see this book of love > > Find out why it's true > > > > I wonder wonder who, be-d who > > Who wrote the book of love > > > > Chorus: > > > > Chapter one says the lover > > You lover her with all your heart > > > > Chapter two you tell her > > You never, never, never, never, ever wanna part > > > > In chapter three remember > > The meaning of romance > > > > In chapter four you break up > > But you give her just one more chance > > > > Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who > > Who wrote the book of love > > > > Baby, baby, baby > > I love you yes I do > > Well it says so in this book of love > > Are's is the one that's true > > > > Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who > > Who wrote the book of love > > > > (Chorus) > > > > Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who > > Who wrote the book of love > > > > Baby, baby, baby > > I love you yes I do > > Well it says so in this book of love > > Are's is the one that's true > > > > I wonder wonder who, be-d who > > Who wrote the book of love > > > > > > Not to mention Stevie Wonder! > > > > > > They want certainty, pat answers. And there- > > > fore they believe that the books that give them the > > > pat answers they prefer would've required God to be > > > the invited guest at the book signings at Borders. > > > > > > Maybe she has already been there, done that. > > > > > > > > Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside > > > > the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and > > > > invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case > > > > with the Loch Ness monster. > > > > Ye, but i am sure there i a super hero that fits the description. > > "Cosmic Surfer" ? > > > > > > > If I believe that the Loch Ness monster is both inside > > > and outside the universe, and is transcendent and invisible, > > > does that make me a theologian? If so, do I get a hat that > > > says "Theologian" on it? > > > > Ye, but it looks like the hat in Cat in the Hat. Or perhaps a leopard > > skin pill-box hat. > > > > > > HIM : He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity > > > > whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is > > > > something rather than nothing. > > > > What if there is actually nothing? All rope, no snake. > > > > > I don't remember having asked the qu
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
"Or perhaps a leopard skin pill-box hat." Probably my all time favorite Dylan song! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Cool rap, Curtis. I'll take a break from grindhouse > > movies and comment in a few places. :-) > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > wrote: > > > > > > 1. Is the Bible a different kind of book from other books created > > > by man? How does he know? Once we decide that they are specially > > > inspired by God, how do we know which parts we should take > > > seriously and which are just metaphors? Do the parts that start > > > with "God said" mean that God said those things? > > > > Not to even *mention* the question of what language > > God was speaking when he said this shit? :-) > > I imagine it was in 2000ish teen girl dialect. "like my creation is > sooo kewl. Im IMing you all about it." > > > > > If religious people would hand over the conception that their > > > specific religious books are different from other books created > > > by man, we would all just be back in the same human family > > > together,living in a world of wonder to explore and hypothesize > > > about. > > Does this imply that you don't believe there any humans who have seen, > lived and become absorbed in the divine? (or any variation of such)? > And that such persons, if they exist, are unable to write any books > about it? > > I would think such a book, or books, in native form, with accurate > translations, with no great councils or groups editing it to make it > conform to their newish doctrine, might be somewhat distinct from > regular books at B&N. > > > I think you've (possibly inadvertently) put your > > finger on the whole issue here, Curtis. Many people > > don't *want* a "world of wonder." Wonder *terrifies* > > them. > > I am not so sure about that. > > wonder wonder who, oouu who > Who wrote the book of love > > Tell me, tell me, tell me > Oh who wrote the book of love > > I've got to know the answer > Was it someone from above > > I wonder wonder who, be-do-do who > Who wrote the book of love > > I, I love you darlin' > Baby you know I do > But I've got to see this book of love > Find out why it's true > > I wonder wonder who, be-d who > Who wrote the book of love > > Chorus: > > Chapter one says the lover > You lover her with all your heart > > Chapter two you tell her > You never, never, never, never, ever wanna part > > In chapter three remember > The meaning of romance > > In chapter four you break up > But you give her just one more chance > > Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who > Who wrote the book of love > > Baby, baby, baby > I love you yes I do > Well it says so in this book of love > Are's is the one that's true > > Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who > Who wrote the book of love > > (Chorus) > > Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who > Who wrote the book of love > > Baby, baby, baby > I love you yes I do > Well it says so in this book of love > Are's is the one that's true > > I wonder wonder who, be-d who > Who wrote the book of love > > > Not to mention Stevie Wonder! > > > They want certainty, pat answers. And there- > > fore they believe that the books that give them the > > pat answers they prefer would've required God to be > > the invited guest at the book signings at Borders. > > > Maybe she has already been there, done that. > > > > > Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside > > > the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and > > > invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case > > > with the Loch Ness monster. > > Ye, but i am sure there i a super hero that fits the description. > "Cosmic Surfer" ? > > > > If I believe that the Loch Ness monster is both inside > > and outside the universe, and is transcendent and invisible, > > does that make me a theologian? If so, do I get a hat that > > says "Theologian" on it? > > Ye, but it looks like the hat in Cat in the Hat. Or perhaps a leopard > skin pill-box hat. > > > > HIM : He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity > > > whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is > > > something rather than nothing. > > What if there is actually nothing? All rope, no snake. > > > I don't remember having asked the question. For that > > matter, I don't remember the *universe* having asked > > that question. Humans who are uncomfortable with a > > world of wonder ask that question, and search for a > > pat answer to it. > > Or wondering who that girl was: > > There she was just a-walkin down the street, > Singin, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do > Snappin her fingers and shufflin her feet, > Singin, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do > She looked good, looked good > She looked fine, looked fine > She looked good, she looked fine > And I nearly los
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cool rap, Curtis. I'll take a break from grindhouse > movies and comment in a few places. :-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > 1. Is the Bible a different kind of book from other books created > > by man? How does he know? Once we decide that they are specially > > inspired by God, how do we know which parts we should take > > seriously and which are just metaphors? Do the parts that start > > with "God said" mean that God said those things? > > Not to even *mention* the question of what language > God was speaking when he said this shit? :-) I imagine it was in 2000ish teen girl dialect. "like my creation is sooo kewl. Im IMing you all about it." > > > If religious people would hand over the conception that their > > specific religious books are different from other books created > > by man, we would all just be back in the same human family > > together,living in a world of wonder to explore and hypothesize > > about. Does this imply that you don't believe there any humans who have seen, lived and become absorbed in the divine? (or any variation of such)? And that such persons, if they exist, are unable to write any books about it? I would think such a book, or books, in native form, with accurate translations, with no great councils or groups editing it to make it conform to their newish doctrine, might be somewhat distinct from regular books at B&N. > I think you've (possibly inadvertently) put your > finger on the whole issue here, Curtis. Many people > don't *want* a "world of wonder." Wonder *terrifies* > them. I am not so sure about that. wonder wonder who, oouu who Who wrote the book of love Tell me, tell me, tell me Oh who wrote the book of love I've got to know the answer Was it someone from above I wonder wonder who, be-do-do who Who wrote the book of love I, I love you darlin' Baby you know I do But I've got to see this book of love Find out why it's true I wonder wonder who, be-d who Who wrote the book of love Chorus: Chapter one says the lover You lover her with all your heart Chapter two you tell her You never, never, never, never, ever wanna part In chapter three remember The meaning of romance In chapter four you break up But you give her just one more chance Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who Who wrote the book of love Baby, baby, baby I love you yes I do Well it says so in this book of love Are's is the one that's true Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who Who wrote the book of love (Chorus) Oh I wonder wonder who, be-d who Who wrote the book of love Baby, baby, baby I love you yes I do Well it says so in this book of love Are's is the one that's true I wonder wonder who, be-d who Who wrote the book of love Not to mention Stevie Wonder! They want certainty, pat answers. And there- > fore they believe that the books that give them the > pat answers they prefer would've required God to be > the invited guest at the book signings at Borders. Maybe she has already been there, done that. > > Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside > > the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and > > invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case > > with the Loch Ness monster. Ye, but i am sure there i a super hero that fits the description. "Cosmic Surfer" ? > If I believe that the Loch Ness monster is both inside > and outside the universe, and is transcendent and invisible, > does that make me a theologian? If so, do I get a hat that > says "Theologian" on it? Ye, but it looks like the hat in Cat in the Hat. Or perhaps a leopard skin pill-box hat. > > HIM : He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity > > whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is > > something rather than nothing. What if there is actually nothing? All rope, no snake. > I don't remember having asked the question. For that > matter, I don't remember the *universe* having asked > that question. Humans who are uncomfortable with a > world of wonder ask that question, and search for a > pat answer to it. Or wondering who that girl was: There she was just a-walkin down the street, Singin, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do Snappin her fingers and shufflin her feet, Singin, do-wah diddy-diddy down diddy-do She looked good, looked good She looked fine, looked fine She looked good, she looked fine And I nearly lost my mind > Lao Tzu said, "From wonder into wonder life will open." > He didn't say, "From wonder into certainty and knowledge > of the truth life will open." Many theists do. I think > I'd rather go out drinkin' with Lao Tzu. Bob Dylan sang: It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe It don't matter, anyhow And it ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe If you don't know by now When your rooster crows at the breaks of dawn Look out your window
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll give it some time with a latte in one hand at a my local Borders. > Thats a nice modern chick name. Does she have a sister?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Lao Tzu said, "From wonder into wonder life will open." > > He didn't say, "From wonder into certainty and knowledge > > of the truth life will open." Many theists do. I think > > I'd rather go out drinkin' with Lao Tzu. > > Nice tie-in with a less evangelical version of man's thoughts > on reality. Less evangelical and less goal-oriented. In Taoism, one aspires to flow with the Way, not to "get someplace." The Lao-tzu quote I use to open Road Trip Mind is, "A good traveler has no fixed destination, and is not intent upon arriving." Same idea. Taoist philosophy is more concerned with appreciating the beauty of what is than with trying to figure out *why* or *how* what is is. Some folks seem to want to find out the "answers" to the "questions" of life. Lao-tzu would probably suggest, as I did, that life has never *asked* them any questions. It merely is. In some circles, appreciating what is is considered a more refined art that understanding what is, and certainly a more refined art than convincing oneself that one understands what is. It probably all comes down to predilection. No "good" or "bad" or "best" or "worst" about it, just predilection. Some folks seek answers to what they perceive as questions. Others just groove on what they perceive as groovy. :-) > Last night I was at a concert by Rory Block, my favorite > female blues guitarists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJdPZTOXwh8 > (I already sent you this link Turq) She was doing a show with Robert > Johnson's grandson who is a preacher and his 30 person gospel choir. > I was seeing the show with my Buddhist Thai friend. After Rory tore > it up with her great blues, the preacher started his preaching with > the choir singing behind him. His message was was so bombastic and > assumptive concerning what anyone in the audience might already know > about reality or life, that we eventually just left. It was > insulting and presumptuous especially since the audience was there > to hear Rory's blues. I find most attempts to "save" someone or convert them to a belief system insulting and presumptuous. An olde comedy troupe from the 60s and 70s called the Firesign Theater used to have a routine about The Blinding Light Church of the Presumptuous Assumption. I always liked that. The assumption that your beliefs *need* evangel- izing is perhaps the greatest presumption anyone could make. :-) For me, beliefs are best shared -- NOT evangelized -- by just throwing them out like spaghetti against the fridge, to see if they "stick." If they do, cool. If they don't, cool. The spiritual bookstore metaphor I mentioned some time ago...you just put your book on the shelf and see what happens. To take that book and thump it while preaching hellfire and brimstone to those who *don't* want to buy it, or to chase people in an airport trying to sell it to them, seems a tad...uh...excessive. I think that most people have an intuitive resistance to evangelists; I know I do. The louder they preach and the more they try to convince me of the "rightness" of their beliefs, the more I suspect that the person they're trying to convince is *themselves*, not me. > On talking with my Thai friend we discussed how his religion doesn't > suppose that everyone else needs to be "saved". He had a hard time > even understanding why the preacher was so assertive and rude to > attempt to make us believe something by force of will and a lot of > people shouting at us. I share his incredulity. > I liked your points about life's "answers". As if it posed questions. :-) > I am comfortable with the idea that using "life" and "meaning" > is just a linguistic error. My > life has the meaning I create > for it. I feel the same way. Again, possibly predilection. Some folks seem to be seriously threatened by the concept that life might have no meaning whatsoever. I find that concept liberating -- it frees me to find whatever "meaning" that suits the moment, and then to allow it to change as the moment changes. > It takes work but like home cooking over ready-made fast food, > it is much more satisfying. That's the thing -- it takes work. Some folks seem to want to be spoon-fed "the answers" so that they don't have to *do* the work. The TM organization, to name just one spiritual org, seems to thrive on providing "the answers." Have you ever heard Maharishi say, "I don't know?" Remember, "Every question is a perfect opportunity for the answer we have already prepared?" It's a way of life. There are other ways of life. Again, as I see it it's a matter of predilection -- some folks seek answers in life and others just seek to live life...and live it well, as an artform. I've found that the further I can immerse myself in life, the fewer "questions" it poses, the more satisfaction I find *in* life, and the more life opens itself to even *more* satisfaction. It's as
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ME: I'll start with Terry Eagleton. Thanks again for posting these > critiques Judy. > > His criticism of Dawkins proposes an argument that the New Testament > Jesus offers a perspective of God that is much improved from the Old > Testament Jewish version. It borders on an antisemitic rant at one > point. Sorry, but this strikes me as such a monumental misunderstanding of what Eagleton is saying that I can't get past it to deal with anything else in your post. Please quote the passages from his review that you believe support your claim.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't remember having asked the question. For that > matter, I don't remember the *universe* having asked > that question. Humans who are uncomfortable with a > world of wonder ask that question, and search for a > pat answer to it. BZT. Wrong-a-roonie. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is the ultimate expression of wonderment. > Lao Tzu said, "From wonder into wonder life will open." > He didn't say, "From wonder into certainty and knowledge > of the truth life will open." Many theists do. *Some* theists do. Most don't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
Lao Tzu said, "From wonder into wonder life will open." He didn't say, "From wonder into certainty and knowledge of the truth life will open." Many theists do. I think I'd rather go out drinkin' with Lao Tzu. Nice tie-in with a less evangelical version of man's thoughts on reality. Last night I was at a concert by Rory Block, my favorite female blues guitarists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJdPZTOXwh8 ( I already sent you this link Turq) She was doing a show with Robert Johnson's grandson who is a preacher and his 30 person gospel choir. I was seeing the show with my Buddhist Thai friend. After Rory tore it up with her great blues, the preacher started his preaching with the choir singing behind him. His message was was so bombastic and assumptive concerning what anyone in the audience might already know about reality or life, that we eventually just left. It was insulting and presumptuous especially since the audience was there to hear Rory's blues. I think her tour with this group was a miscalculation. On talking with my Thai friend we discussed how his religion doesn't suppose that everyone else needs to be "saved". He had a hard time even understanding why the preacher was so assertive and rude to attempt to make us believe something by force of will and a lot of people shouting at us. (It was all miked to the gills and unbelievably loud.) Worst of all Robert Johnson's grandson has none of his musical talent and doesn't understand the subtle freedom from religion message that runs through Robert's lyrics. I liked your points about life's "answers". I am comfortable with the idea that using "life" and "meaning" is just a linguistic error. My life has the meaning I create for it. It takes work but like home cooking over ready-made fast food, it is much more satisfying. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cool rap, Curtis. I'll take a break from grindhouse > movies and comment in a few places. :-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > 1. Is the Bible a different kind of book from other books created > > by man? How does he know? Once we decide that they are specially > > inspired by God, how do we know which parts we should take > > seriously and which are just metaphors? Do the parts that start > > with "God said" mean that God said those things? > > Not to even *mention* the question of what language > God was speaking when he said this shit? :-) > > > If religious people would hand over the conception that their > > specific religious books are different from other books created > > by man, we would all just be back in the same human family > > together,living in a world of wonder to explore and hypothesize > > about. > > I think you've (possibly inadvertently) put your > finger on the whole issue here, Curtis. Many people > don't *want* a "world of wonder." Wonder *terrifies* > them. They want certainty, pat answers. And there- > fore they believe that the books that give them the > pat answers they prefer would've required God to be > the invited guest at the book signings at Borders. > > > HIM: Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must > > be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. > > Oh? > > > Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like > > concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. > > Oh? > > > God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose > > existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. > > Oh? Why not? > > > Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside > > the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and > > invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case > > with the Loch Ness monster. > > If I believe that the Loch Ness monster is both inside > and outside the universe, and is transcendent and invisible, > does that make me a theologian? If so, do I get a hat that > says "Theologian" on it? > > > HIM : He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity > > whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is > > something rather than nothing. > > I don't remember having asked the question. For that > matter, I don't remember the *universe* having asked > that question. Humans who are uncomfortable with a > world of wonder ask that question, and search for a > pat answer to it. > > Lao Tzu said, "From wonder into wonder life will open." > He didn't say, "From wonder into certainty and knowledge > of the truth life will open." Many theists do. I think > I'd rather go out drinkin' with Lao Tzu. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
Cool rap, Curtis. I'll take a break from grindhouse movies and comment in a few places. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. Is the Bible a different kind of book from other books created > by man? How does he know? Once we decide that they are specially > inspired by God, how do we know which parts we should take > seriously and which are just metaphors? Do the parts that start > with "God said" mean that God said those things? Not to even *mention* the question of what language God was speaking when he said this shit? :-) > If religious people would hand over the conception that their > specific religious books are different from other books created > by man, we would all just be back in the same human family > together,living in a world of wonder to explore and hypothesize > about. I think you've (possibly inadvertently) put your finger on the whole issue here, Curtis. Many people don't *want* a "world of wonder." Wonder *terrifies* them. They want certainty, pat answers. And there- fore they believe that the books that give them the pat answers they prefer would've required God to be the invited guest at the book signings at Borders. > HIM: Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must > be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Oh? > Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like > concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. Oh? > God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose > existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Oh? Why not? > Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside > the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and > invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case > with the Loch Ness monster. If I believe that the Loch Ness monster is both inside and outside the universe, and is transcendent and invisible, does that make me a theologian? If so, do I get a hat that says "Theologian" on it? > HIM : He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity > whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is > something rather than nothing. I don't remember having asked the question. For that matter, I don't remember the *universe* having asked that question. Humans who are uncomfortable with a world of wonder ask that question, and search for a pat answer to it. Lao Tzu said, "From wonder into wonder life will open." He didn't say, "From wonder into certainty and knowledge of the truth life will open." Many theists do. I think I'd rather go out drinkin' with Lao Tzu.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
Eugene McCarraher's was too much of a personal opinion piece and personal attack on Hitchens for me to argue against. I might even agree with some of his points, but have not read Hitchens's book to know. He isn't providing the same kind of details behind his thinking that Terry Eagleton provided. Once again the charge is that there are more sophisticated version of religion when the real problem is the first assumptive step religion's make. But Hitchens's dickish support for the Iraq war doesn't endear me to him enough to wade through his book. I have my own intellectual prejudices also. Perhaps I'll give it some time with a latte in one hand at a my local Borders. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ > > > > This topic interests me. It is a dilemma for non believers. > > The challenge of staying in rapport while being true to your > > own position, which is by definition, a negation of someone > > else's POV. Right now there are a few books out that aren't > > pulling any punches and some come off as pretty caustic to > > believers. I keep reading criticisms of these books that > > focus on their disrespectful tone and a claim that the > > authors are unfairly lumping together fundamentalists > > believers with people the reviewers consider more thoughtful, > > (themselves). Sometimes the reviewers come off as just as > > rudely dismissive of fundamentalist believers as the atheists. > > I don't see anyone spelling out what exactly their God belief > > includes in any detail. Just a lot of dodge ball, "That isn't > > my version, not that either, nope you aren't talking about > > mine". Andrew Sullivan was the master of this game in his > > debate with Sam Harris, reducing his God belief into certain > > uncontroversial human emotions, (We all like puppies right? > > Then my God is puppies). > > Your parenthetical above, just for the record, > is exactly the sort of thing the reviewers are > complaining about, and with good reason. > > As Terry Eagleton says in his review of > Dawkins's book: > > "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only > knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, > and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to > read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying > rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to > a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand > Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to > understand what they castigate, since they don't > believe there is anything there to be understood, or at > least anything worth understanding. > > "This is why they invariably come up with vulgar > caricatures of religious faith that would make a > first-year theology student wince. The more they detest > religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it > tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on > phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they > would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously > as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any > shoddy old travesty will pass muster." > > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html > > Eagleton also gives a rather specific definition > of God, although I doubt it would be specific > enough to satisfy Curtis. > > Here's a comment from another review of Hitchens's > book: > > "As for straw-man argument, a single example suffices > to reveal Hitchens's petulant mediocrity in philosophy. > The notion of a creator, he observes, raises 'the > unanswerable question of who...created the creator'-- > an objection that theologians 'have consistently failed > to overcome.' > > "Really? Any decent freshman survey could have informed > Hitchens that, as Aquinas and many others have patiently > explained, God is not an entity and thus is not ensnared > in any serial account of causality. Not a thing himself, > God is rather the condition of there being anything at > all. > > "Thus, 'creation' is not a gargantuan act of handicraft > but rather the condition of there being something rather > than nothing. Creation didn't happen long ago; it's > right now, and forever. (This is why 'creationism' is > bad science--because it's bad theology.)" > > http://tinyurl.com/2ezkws > (from "Commonweal" magazine) > > Atheists tend to be exceedingly unsophisticated > metaphysically, so when a believer doesn't define > God in similarly unsophisticated terms, in the > kind of concrete detail that is the only approach > the atheists know how to deal with, the atheists > think the believer must be playing "dodgeball." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
ME: I'll start with Terry Eagleton. Thanks again for posting these critiques Judy. His criticism of Dawkins proposes an argument that the New Testament Jesus offers a perspective of God that is much improved from the Old Testament Jewish version. It borders on an antisemitic rant at one point. He dismisses other popular versions of religious fundamentalist perspectives as harshly as Dawkins does. It seems that fundamentalists of all religions just can't get a break from atheists or their critics. If you take your scripture seriously as the literal word of God, you are just an uneducated rube. Here are my main problems with his critique. First, he failures to answer this questions : 1. Is the Bible a different kind of book from other books created by man? How does he know? Once we decide that they are specially inspired by God, how do we know which parts we should take seriously and which are just metaphors? Do the parts that start with "God said" mean that God said those things? Should we put people to death for worshiping other Gods? If religious people would hand over the conception that their specific religious books are different from other books created by man, we would all just be back in the same human family together,living in a world of wonder to explore and hypothesize about. But telling Dawkins that his taking the source books of a religion seriously and at face value is unfair, is completely bogus. Either these books are different from other acts of human creation, or they are not. If they are then any line that starts with "God said" must be taken seriously. He is claiming that only people who have studied theology at a high level should be taken seriously on these topics. This is just religious and academic elitism. There are millions of people in the world who do believe in their scriptures literally. If a comparatively few academics have a more nuanced view, good for them, they are not the ones strapping on the bombs over tiny differences in religious doctrine. They are also not helping dispute the claim that is causing the problem, that my God book told me to kill you. HIM: Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster. ME: 2. He is presenting the ontological leap of his religious beliefs. Here he begins a description that is meant to show how much more sophisticated his Christian view of God is than Jews and fundamentalists. OK so he has established that his God is more like Casper than the physical Loch Ness Monster. Fine, so God is invisible. This is not exactly earth shattering but lets see where he is going with this. HIM: This is not to say that religious people believe in a black hole, because they also consider that God has revealed himself: not, as Dawkins thinks, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer even smarter than Dawkins himself (the New Testament has next to nothing to say about God as Creator), but for Christians at least, in the form of a reviled and murdered political criminal. The Jews of the so-called Old Testament had faith in God, but this does not mean that after debating the matter at a number of international conferences they decided to endorse the scientific hypothesis that there existed a supreme architect of the universe even though, as Genesis reveals, they were of this opinion. They had faith in God in the sense that I have faith in you. They may well have been mistaken in their view; but they were not mistaken because their scientific hypothesis was unsound. ME: Now we get down to his real bias. He is using Jesus as the revealed form of the invisible God. The New Testament is repetitive and clear about why we should believe this to be so. It is because of the reported miracles and the similarity of the circumstances of Jesus' life to the Jewish Messiah myth. None of Jesus' teachings were philosophically unique, despite Christians attempts to assert this. His most popular teachings are not even unique to our species, forgiveness is a quality of all social primate cultures. He never denounced the message of the Old Testament or its laws which Terry will ridicule later. Terry's belief in God is based on his belief in the specialness of Jesus. He points out that the New Testament doesn't identify God as a creator and seems to be making fun of Dawkins for viewing him that way. His point about how the Jews came to their belief in him as a creator dodges the ontological leap. They made up a story about
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy, > > I hoped you would weigh in on this topic. Thanks for the great > quotes and links to the reviews. I will enjoy giving them some > more thought to see where I fall on their comments and piece > together my response. I have more to gain intellectually from the > critiques than the books themselves! That is where the edges of my > understanding lie. This is kind of the point I made to Barry a few posts back, that "mutually respectful exchange of views" is all very well, but it's the adversarial context of vigorous debate that really enables one to challenge and refine one's beliefs. One does wonder, however, how much challenging and refining of their beliefs the authors of these books will engage in as a consequence of the points raised in the various reviews. It would be fascinating to hear the arguments of an atheist who had gone to the trouble to bone up on the non-fundamentalist theological positions (and even some of the more sophisticated fundamentalist positions, perhaps; they're not all simplistic by any means).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
Judy, I hoped you would weigh in on this topic. Thanks for the great quotes and links to the reviews. I will enjoy giving them some more thought to see where I fall on their comments and piece together my response. I have more to gain intellectually from the critiques than the books themselves! That is where the edges of my understanding lie. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > wrote: > > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ > > > > This topic interests me. It is a dilemma for non believers. > > The challenge of staying in rapport while being true to your > > own position, which is by definition, a negation of someone > > else's POV. Right now there are a few books out that aren't > > pulling any punches and some come off as pretty caustic to > > believers. I keep reading criticisms of these books that > > focus on their disrespectful tone and a claim that the > > authors are unfairly lumping together fundamentalists > > believers with people the reviewers consider more thoughtful, > > (themselves). Sometimes the reviewers come off as just as > > rudely dismissive of fundamentalist believers as the atheists. > > I don't see anyone spelling out what exactly their God belief > > includes in any detail. Just a lot of dodge ball, "That isn't > > my version, not that either, nope you aren't talking about > > mine". Andrew Sullivan was the master of this game in his > > debate with Sam Harris, reducing his God belief into certain > > uncontroversial human emotions, (We all like puppies right? > > Then my God is puppies). > > Your parenthetical above, just for the record, > is exactly the sort of thing the reviewers are > complaining about, and with good reason. > > As Terry Eagleton says in his review of > Dawkins's book: > > "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only > knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, > and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to > read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying > rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to > a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand > Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to > understand what they castigate, since they don't > believe there is anything there to be understood, or at > least anything worth understanding. > > "This is why they invariably come up with vulgar > caricatures of religious faith that would make a > first-year theology student wince. The more they detest > religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it > tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on > phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they > would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously > as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any > shoddy old travesty will pass muster." > > http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html > > Eagleton also gives a rather specific definition > of God, although I doubt it would be specific > enough to satisfy Curtis. > > Here's a comment from another review of Hitchens's > book: > > "As for straw-man argument, a single example suffices > to reveal Hitchens's petulant mediocrity in philosophy. > The notion of a creator, he observes, raises 'the > unanswerable question of who...created the creator'-- > an objection that theologians 'have consistently failed > to overcome.' > > "Really? Any decent freshman survey could have informed > Hitchens that, as Aquinas and many others have patiently > explained, God is not an entity and thus is not ensnared > in any serial account of causality. Not a thing himself, > God is rather the condition of there being anything at > all. > > "Thus, 'creation' is not a gargantuan act of handicraft > but rather the condition of there being something rather > than nothing. Creation didn't happen long ago; it's > right now, and forever. (This is why 'creationism' is > bad science--because it's bad theology.)" > > http://tinyurl.com/2ezkws > (from "Commonweal" magazine) > > Atheists tend to be exceedingly unsophisticated > metaphysically, so when a believer doesn't define > God in similarly unsophisticated terms, in the > kind of concrete detail that is the only approach > the atheists know how to deal with, the atheists > think the believer must be playing "dodgeball." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I read the article that Edg posted about, and laughed > my entire way through it. If one doesn't believe that > life *has* meaning, other than Just Being Life, it's > difficult to get too bent out of shape about someone > debating the fine points of assigning it meaning. > "Ultimate questions" rarely interest me. How to live > a happier and more productive live "down here" do. How about this part of the article? Were you still laughing when you got to it? "The meaning of life is not a solution to a problem," he writes, "but a matter of living in a certain way." It is not an idea but a behavior, "not metaphysical, but ethical." And the ethics involved are not a lot of mystical mumbo jumbo but "an embarrassingly prosaic affair -- a matter of feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger and visiting the imprisoned." He might add, working to change the social order so that more people have the ability to live according to this ethos. ...The need to do these things, to live this life, he says, arises not from God but from the nature of human beings themselves. We can't get away from it; it's our essence. We are social animals who thrive on love; not just love for our kith and kin, but the kind of love, called "agape" -- caring for our fellow man -- that is "a practice or a way of life, not a state of mind." The more this type of love circulates in our community, the more meaning we find in life itself and the happier we become.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's funny that you brought this subject up, because I was > thinking of doing so earlier today. It's just such a > *pleasure* to see or participate in a mutually-respectful > interchange of ideas that I really don't see the *payoff* > for those who habitually have to turn them into a "clash" > of ideas. I don't understand what they *get* from such > clashes. I think what you're missing is that some people engage in debate for the purpose of challenging their own beliefs. If you don't want to subject your beliefs to challenge, then a "mutually respectful discussion" is fine. Of course, a debate can also be mutually respectful; but the adversarial component is what provides the challenge, making you think deeply about your beliefs and refine or adjust them as necessary to meet the challenge.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ > > This topic interests me. It is a dilemma for non believers. > The challenge of staying in rapport while being true to your > own position, which is by definition, a negation of someone > else's POV. Right now there are a few books out that aren't > pulling any punches and some come off as pretty caustic to > believers. I keep reading criticisms of these books that > focus on their disrespectful tone and a claim that the > authors are unfairly lumping together fundamentalists > believers with people the reviewers consider more thoughtful, > (themselves). Sometimes the reviewers come off as just as > rudely dismissive of fundamentalist believers as the atheists. > I don't see anyone spelling out what exactly their God belief > includes in any detail. Just a lot of dodge ball, "That isn't > my version, not that either, nope you aren't talking about > mine". Andrew Sullivan was the master of this game in his > debate with Sam Harris, reducing his God belief into certain > uncontroversial human emotions, (We all like puppies right? > Then my God is puppies). Your parenthetical above, just for the record, is exactly the sort of thing the reviewers are complaining about, and with good reason. As Terry Eagleton says in his review of Dawkins's book: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. "This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster." http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html Eagleton also gives a rather specific definition of God, although I doubt it would be specific enough to satisfy Curtis. Here's a comment from another review of Hitchens's book: "As for straw-man argument, a single example suffices to reveal Hitchens's petulant mediocrity in philosophy. The notion of a creator, he observes, raises 'the unanswerable question of who...created the creator'-- an objection that theologians 'have consistently failed to overcome.' "Really? Any decent freshman survey could have informed Hitchens that, as Aquinas and many others have patiently explained, God is not an entity and thus is not ensnared in any serial account of causality. Not a thing himself, God is rather the condition of there being anything at all. "Thus, 'creation' is not a gargantuan act of handicraft but rather the condition of there being something rather than nothing. Creation didn't happen long ago; it's right now, and forever. (This is why 'creationism' is bad science--because it's bad theology.)" http://tinyurl.com/2ezkws (from "Commonweal" magazine) Atheists tend to be exceedingly unsophisticated metaphysically, so when a believer doesn't define God in similarly unsophisticated terms, in the kind of concrete detail that is the only approach the atheists know how to deal with, the atheists think the believer must be playing "dodgeball."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ > > This topic interests me. Me, too, and I think we might more of a handle on the phenomenon -- having watched similar stuff go down on FFL and other Internet forums for some time now -- than the general public would. > It is a dilemma for non believers. The challenge of staying > in rapport while being true to your own position, which is > by definition, a negation of someone else's POV. Which only becomes an issue or a problem when *either* side becomes *attached* to their POV, their opinion, and confuses that with "Truth." I've seen this on both sides of the God/atheist discussion. It often *isn't* a discussion -- more of a debate -- because one or both sides is *heavily* invested in their opinion as if it were Truth. I think that the chaplain in the article has a point with his diatribe, because I, too, found all three of the recently-published and recently-active atheists to be primarily interested in polemic and argument, and in some instances even more attached to their POVs than the theists they were debating. > Right now there are a few books out that aren't pulling > any punches and some come off as pretty caustic to believers. I believe that some of them are *intentionally* caustic, and that the cause of this may fall in lap of literary agents and publishers as much as it does the authors. Controversy *sells*, and so chances are each of these authors has five or six people whispering in their ears *telling them* to be more caustic, because the whisperers get a slice of the action. > I keep reading criticisms of these books that focus on their > disrespectful tone and a claim that the authors are unfairly > lumping together fundamentalists believers with people the > reviewers consider more thoughtful,(themselves). Chuckle. Well said. > Sometimes the reviewers come off as just as rudely dismissive > of fundamentalist believers as the atheists. People who get off on putdowns don't really *care* who they're putting down, just as long as they're superior to them. Sadly, in some circles this has become almost the definition of a "reviewer." :-) > I don't see anyone spelling out what exactly their God belief > includes in any detail. Just a lot of dodge ball, "That isn't > my version, not that either, nope you aren't talking about mine". Very true, as I pointed out myself in what I hope was a fairly civil atheist/believer discussion here on FFL with Edg. There *is* a strong tendency among believers in God to avoid defining what they consider God to be, probably because many of the believers themselves realize the impossibility of the task. *That*, in my opinion, is one reason that many believers act all affronted and "attacked" when they come face to face with atheists. If they act outraged enough, they can bluster on and avoid *ever* having to define what they think God is. That said, there is more than enough bluster to go around. Some of the atheists in question have a far higher regard for the inherent value of their words than I (basically an atheist) have. Whereas the believers fill themselves with thoughts of God, it seems to me that many of these atheist writers fill themselves with self, with ego. > Andrew Sullivan was the master of this game in his debate > with Sam Harris, reducing his God belief into certain > uncontroversial human emotions, (We all like puppies right? > Then my God is puppies). > > In philosophy people are trained how to argue points so that > it doesn't become a personal attack. This is difficult to > pull off in real life outside an academic setting. I would suggest that this isn't necessarily a truism. And I can offer 230 to 500 *million* examples of why I think this. There are that many Buddhists in the world, very few of whom believe in a sentient, interventionist God. With the exception of a few crazy fundamentalist Hindus and Christians, very few people get all reactive when they encounter a Buddhist. Now admittedly, most Americans are so stupid and uneducated that they don't even *know* that, on the whole, Buddhism has no need in its belief system for a God. But if they did, they probably wouldn't feel as "threatened" or "attacked" by the Buddhists' lack of belief in a God as they are by people they consider "atheists." Why? IMO, partly because the word "atheist" has been systematically "loaded" over the years to mean something BAD. The poll numbers quoted in the article about how only 3% of the US population would vote for an atheist are interesting. I'd like to see a similar poll in which the same people were asked if they would vote for a Buddhist. I'd be willing to bet that the numbers would be much higher, and that most people would vote for a Buddhist. Why? Because Buddhism hasn't been as stigmatized as atheism. The word "Buddhist" has not been sy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Can atheists just be nice?
Comment below: ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ > > This topic interests me. It is a dilemma for non believers. The > challenge of staying in rapport while being true to your own position, > which is by definition, a negation of someone else's POV. Right now > there are a few books out that aren't pulling any punches and some > come off as pretty caustic to believers. I keep reading criticisms of > these books that focus on their disrespectful tone and a claim that > the authors are unfairly lumping together fundamentalists believers > with people the reviewers consider more thoughtful,(themselves). > Sometimes the reviewers come off as just as rudely dismissive of > fundamentalist believers as the atheists. I don't see anyone spelling > out what exactly their God belief includes in any detail. Just a lot > of dodge ball, "That isn't my version, not that either, nope you > aren't talking about mine". Andrew Sullivan was the master of this > game in his debate with Sam Harris, reducing his God belief into > certain uncontroversial human emotions, (We all like puppies right? > Then my God is puppies). > > In philosophy people are trained how to argue points so that it > doesn't become a personal attack. This is difficult to pull off in > real life outside an academic setting. I find it is a rare person who > can discuss their spiritual beliefs without taking it personally and > getting upset. When it works here on this board I am really > impressed, it can be done. It takes practice I think, and a > commitment to mutual respect. > > It is possible to believe you are right about your perspective while > allowing that someone else may benefit from seeing it differently. It > would be intellectually disingenuous for me to say that they just have > a different truth. I think it is OK to believe that someone is wrong > about something while respecting their right to believe what they > want. It helps to have an awareness of all the times in the past that > I have been wrong about things and the fact that it is hard to figure > out the things I am wrong about right now, but passionately believe. > There may be a bigger category of different versions of "right". > > I think FFL is helping me improve the ability to discuss ideas in a > respectful way. It helps that many posters are mature in their own > spirituality so my skepticism doesn't stir more than a light breeze. > It often feels safe to be honest here about what I believe and don't > believe and the larger area of "I don't know". There are rough > patches here, but we are all works in progress and this project isn't > the easiest to pull off gracefully. > > I guess the bottom line is that the balance is to be true to your own > perspective without being a dick about it. Sometimes that is a fine > line, and sometimes it is pretty obvious. I know my limitations, I may > never be able to gain this balance with certain posters. But watching > the process unfold between different people is fascinating. I'm a fan > of what goes on here. Kumbaya baby! > **end** The 20th C. painter and arguably the progenitor of "abstract" art, Wassily Kandinsky, in speaking about how to look at a painting or a piece of artwork, recommended something along the lines of "looking to find what is right" about a piece of art rather than what is wrong. A painter may have gotten it wrong many times within a painting but she may also have gotten it "right", too, and according to Kandinsky, that is what the viewer should concern himself with, looking to see where she got it right. (The parallel with the "dead dog's white teeth" instruction is noted.) Everyone speaks and acts with the intention of getting it right, even though they may fail in that intention, or be mistaken from the start on first principles. But, nevertheless, from their point of view what they say and what they do must seem fundamentally right (at least at the time) or they wouldn't say it or do it. Even if immediately after, they regret or re-think their statement or action. There are lots of times while reading posts on FFL, where I have to bite my tongue, so to speak, from replying to a post where the tone is condescending or the argument fatuous or the subject just plain meanspirited -- as I see it. But I generally don't because I'm sure that the poster doesn't see it that way, or if they do, then they also feel that there's a good reason for posting it nonetheless. Some feel more readily prompted to post and point out the "errors" they see in what others write, and the character flaws they see exhibited in the other's posts. That's fine, too (I guess), but I'd endorse Curtis' perspective that "the balance is to be true to your own perspective without being a dick about it", and I always appreciate every example of that on this fo
