Zilch's sin is speaking from the atheistic perspective, and given that point of view, theism fits into that nutshell as well. If atheism is true, then there really is no more to theism than that, and it easily fits into the nutshell, because all an individual has is his or her experience and personality. And I believe that is the context from which Zilch is speaking, which I also happen to share.
Thanks, Byron- that is indeed exactly what I meant. And you others- if I'm a troll for saying what I did, what about Steve? He said the same thing, but with the addition of one "a". If I can't answer a flippant post with flippancy, then it's a pretty grim blog you've got here.
In all fairness, cleverness is not particularly a requirement for atheism. Cleverness belongs to the theists in their very creative interpretations of reality, and assertions of meaning, in my opinion. The job of the atheist is simply to observe the actual evidence and analyze it to the best of his or her abilities.
My initial comment was prompted by the last 3-4 comments I have seen by zilch posted here. He's been overly pedantic, bordering on obtuse and when I run into that on the internet, it's usually a troll.
Neither theism nor atheism have much to do with that.
You did not mention theism either, but your comments refer to Zilch's words on this post, the context of which refers to both.
I have no idea what you find pedantic or not, frankly. I also have not kept up with Zilch's comments on this blog. I admit I do see things differently as an atheist, but I fail to see any problem with what Zilch wrote, when understood within an atheistic perspective.
I do not know what Zilch's motives are; only he knows. I come to this blog because it is one of the best Christian blogs I have found, and I enjoy reading "the other side" as it were. I find a guilty pleasure in reading opposition to theism, especially on a blog devoted to a specific form of theistic belief. Maybe that is a fault of mine. And at least for this particular comment from Zilch, I see just an observation intended for discussion, perhaps with a little bit of intended opposition for the dominant view of the post. I cannot help but find that interesting.
Byron- have fun here. I suspect that if I were a Christian, I too would gravitate towards the kind of take-no-prisoners Calvinism exemplified by Steve and others. Luckily, or unluckily (depending on who is right), I'm more of a reality-informed guy.
Good Christians- no hard feelings. I certainly don't intend to troll on your parade.
I think the time has come, however, for a break. I hope no one has suffered from my impudence here- anyway, it's all part of God's plan, isn't it? If any of you get out to Austria, or near SF in the summer, drop me a line, and lunch is on me.
Yep. Of course that's theism in a nutshell too.
ReplyDeleteYou're not a very clever troll.
ReplyDeleteVerification: bulogi
You are not overly bright, are you zilch? :-/
ReplyDeleteZilch's sin is speaking from the atheistic perspective, and given that point of view, theism fits into that nutshell as well. If atheism is true, then there really is no more to theism than that, and it easily fits into the nutshell, because all an individual has is his or her experience and personality. And I believe that is the context from which Zilch is speaking, which I also happen to share.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Byron- that is indeed exactly what I meant. And you others- if I'm a troll for saying what I did, what about Steve? He said the same thing, but with the addition of one "a". If I can't answer a flippant post with flippancy, then it's a pretty grim blog you've got here.
ReplyDeleteIt really wasn't that cryptic, but thanks for the long-form explanation all the same.
ReplyDeleteFlippant, yes. Clever? No.
In all fairness, cleverness is not particularly a requirement for atheism. Cleverness belongs to the theists in their very creative interpretations of reality, and assertions of meaning, in my opinion. The job of the atheist is simply to observe the actual evidence and analyze it to the best of his or her abilities.
ReplyDeleteNote that I haven't mentioned atheism.
ReplyDeleteMy initial comment was prompted by the last 3-4 comments I have seen by zilch posted here. He's been overly pedantic, bordering on obtuse and when I run into that on the internet, it's usually a troll.
Neither theism nor atheism have much to do with that.
Mr. Fosi:
ReplyDeleteNote that I haven't mentioned atheism.
You did not mention theism either, but your comments refer to Zilch's words on this post, the context of which refers to both.
I have no idea what you find pedantic or not, frankly. I also have not kept up with Zilch's comments on this blog. I admit I do see things differently as an atheist, but I fail to see any problem with what Zilch wrote, when understood within an atheistic perspective.
I do not know what Zilch's motives are; only he knows. I come to this blog because it is one of the best Christian blogs I have found, and I enjoy reading "the other side" as it were. I find a guilty pleasure in reading opposition to theism, especially on a blog devoted to a specific form of theistic belief. Maybe that is a fault of mine. And at least for this particular comment from Zilch, I see just an observation intended for discussion, perhaps with a little bit of intended opposition for the dominant view of the post. I cannot help but find that interesting.
Byron- have fun here. I suspect that if I were a Christian, I too would gravitate towards the kind of take-no-prisoners Calvinism exemplified by Steve and others. Luckily, or unluckily (depending on who is right), I'm more of a reality-informed guy.
ReplyDeleteGood Christians- no hard feelings. I certainly don't intend to troll on your parade.
I think the time has come, however, for a break. I hope no one has suffered from my impudence here- anyway, it's all part of God's plan, isn't it? If any of you get out to Austria, or near SF in the summer, drop me a line, and lunch is on me.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Point taken, Zilch; thanks.
ReplyDelete