Posts by Paul Litterick
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, they're not Christian rock. It's music that just happens to be made by people who may, or may not, be Christians.
Both Matt Johnson and Jackson Browne are very critical of organised Christianity. It is a shame that people here did not watch the videos before pronouncing judgement. Knee-jerk Atheism is no better than any other prejudice.
Christian Rock itself is deadly dull for the same reasons that Satanic Metal is deadly dull - it's a one-trick pony.
And because the message is more important than the music.
-
Yes, we look for patterns and causes. Some of these have given us material advantages, such as recognising the pattern of the seasons and so knowing when to plant crops. Others, such as believing that the seasons are caused by the gods, might seem ridiculous. But they might have had value, such as giving reassurance to people. Believing irrational things is not necessarily bad for you.
I'm just feeling intimidated by the fact that I am clearly not as well read as others here.
We are just showing off. We do that.
-
Scott's embed was Black Sabbath's Paranoid, in case you were wondering.
-
The The, Jackson Browne, Christian rock? Come on, give the poster some credit. These are not the sort of people you see at Parachute.
And don't get me started on that Wiccan easy listening. Why all that bad art? And what's so wrong with the letter I that it has to be changed to Y?
-
...and didn't you say that you were going to ignore me in future?
No, I only committed to ignoring you for the remainder of that thread, the one in which you accused me of oppressing you. I find your ability to concoct accusations against me, rather than addressing the point, far too entertaining to ignore. I wonder, do strawmen compare penis sizes?
I am sure you will accuse me of further sneering, but I think your introduction of Renaissance Humanists into the discussion was an attempt to avoid answering my question about Animists. But it turns out that you think the Humanists were Animists. Whatever next?
I have read John Gray's Black Mass. I also had the pleasure of meeting Gray and discussing his work with him, at length. I think you are misinterpreting him by saying that rationalists are the authors of the ills you describe. You appear to be making rationalism synonymous with utiopianism, which is the subject of his book. Gray refers to rationalism only briefly, and in the context of Oakeshott's criticism of political rationalism.
Do forgive me if I misinterpreted your desire to encourage me in further reading as an attempt to belittle me, but that is what it seems to be. Please do not trouble yourself to write preces. I can assure you I am well-enough read.
-
Really, you should read more on the study of myth and religion. It is quite illuminating and entertaining.
Really, you should stop patronising me and answer my question.
There is a substantial element of play and irony involved in the interpretation of transcendental symbolism, especially as practised in Neoplatonist influences on Renaissance art and Florentine philosophy.
I thought we were out in the storm with the animists, but now we are in the Florentine Reanaissance. Things move so fast. Pray tell me, how is this relevant? When giving your answer, bear in mind that I know a fair amount about Renaissance art and its influences.
And still you have not explained how Rationalism is a religion.
-
That's a straw man argument.
No it isn't.
And who was it who introduced 'primitives' and their brains to the argument? Not me. And do these books on anthropology say that animists did not hold their beliefs sincerely? I think not.
I am not surprised you find my definition of sincerity narrow, given your liberal use of the word 'religion.' And if you look carefully, you might notice that your Oliver Twist argument is no more than a reiteration of my argument. But then, you seem to think that I equated 'sincerity' with 'objective truth comprehensible to a human.' Such a connection is absurd, as you say; but then you made it, not me.
-
...which really begs the question of whether sincerity is a virtue in itself by your own argument. If it is nonfunctional, then it is not a virtue.
No, it doesn't, because that is not what 'begging the question' means.
Sincerity is a moral value; the value of what is sincerely believed is one of fact. The moral and factual values are distinct.
-
Beyond your recognition. I'm not responsible for your limits.
Beyond the limits of the language. Feel free to make up alternative meanings for words, but keep them to yourself, for the sake of clarity.
Actually, not. Animist religions had/have nothing to do with 'controlling' nature by 'appeasing' it, but serve to articulate a functional relationship and hierarchy...
Blah, blah, blah. You, of course, know what these people, noble savages to a man, believed. It's a basic psychological fact, after all.
What external force or telos validates it?
Oh gawd, a telos. You make sweeping statements unsupported by facts, but you expect me to supply external forces for validation. There are no external forces, there is no telos. Valuing sincerity enables societies to function, to use your words.
-
... I think "new atheism" is a convenient label for a strident and intolerant (perhaps even smugly arrogant) way of discussing "strong" atheism.
After enduring decades of discrimination and abuse, Atheists fight back with words, only to be accused of bad manners.