tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post3042872996264086732..comments2024-03-18T21:33:35.309-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Bill Maher: Bad Theologian, Worse ComedianGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-3093800125131521042009-03-12T08:49:00.000-07:002009-03-12T08:49:00.000-07:00aninnymouse said "Descartes ontological argument f...aninnymouse said "Descartes ontological argument for God has long been successfully refuted, beautiful as it may be (as an argument). See Locke as a starting point."<BR/><BR/>I think there are no ontological arguments but Descartes, therefore nothing exists.<BR/><BR/>(Locke would say that you don't know what you are talking about)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-16486733563825215332009-03-12T05:56:00.000-07:002009-03-12T05:56:00.000-07:00I am bitter, therefore I am.I am bitter, therefore I am.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-23248423533164294932009-03-12T05:54:00.000-07:002009-03-12T05:54:00.000-07:00Successfully refuted? This is news to me.Successfully refuted? This is news to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68785520883462962992009-03-12T05:39:00.000-07:002009-03-12T05:39:00.000-07:00Perhaps you should have studied philosophy in film...Perhaps you should have studied philosophy in film school. Descartes ontological argument for God has long been successfully refuted, beautiful as it may be (as an argument). See Locke as a starting point.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps you should leave philosophy to the philosophers, as you don't seem to have the mind for it. Or at least educate yourself on what's already been said about the ontological argument before discussing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-73859340067830378062008-10-17T08:00:00.000-07:002008-10-17T08:00:00.000-07:0022 books doesn't mean his wasn't found, it means t...22 books doesn't mean his wasn't found, it means the column looks like a giant ad. The point isn't that the book is at the top of said ad, it is that friendly, full fledged conversation is made impossible by a clinical psychologist. You too are certainly putting a friendly foot forward now that it's been mentioned.<BR/><BR/>Enjoy your stagnant conversational circle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-36012487591362903952008-10-16T19:10:00.000-07:002008-10-16T19:10:00.000-07:00aninnymouse said "There are 22 book links in the r...aninnymouse said "There are 22 book links in the right margin of this blog, Van."<BR/><BR/>Yeah... pretty tough to guess that the first one might have something to do with the owner of the blog... oh, wait, 'Gagdad Bob' might not be his real name, the first book says 'Robert Godwin'... hmmm what to do... that link in the 'Profile' that also links to the same book is just so darn confusing....<BR/><BR/>Like I said, it's still safe.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"I've not made a single statement disclosing my spiritual beliefs..."<BR/><BR/>Wrong. You just know too little about yourself to realize it.<BR/><BR/>"... I still can't get a single thought-out response."<BR/><BR/>Well as they say, recognizing you have a problem is the first step towards recovery, good luck with that.<BR/><BR/>"Way to be a shining examples."<BR/><BR/>Yeah. It's a Raccoon thing.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-60472976261259171432008-10-16T13:22:00.000-07:002008-10-16T13:22:00.000-07:00There are 22 book links in the right margin of thi...There are 22 book links in the right margin of this blog, Van.<BR/><BR/>It's strange that the 'religiously, intellectually and spiritually awakened' are so keen to name calling. I've not made a single statement disclosing my spiritual beliefs and I still can't get a single thought-out response. Way to be a shining examples.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-51248964147973497872008-10-15T17:09:00.000-07:002008-10-15T17:09:00.000-07:00Wow... too stupid to find and follow a link to Ama...Wow... too stupid to find and follow a link to Amazon from the main page eh?<BR/><BR/>(uh-oh... did I give away the secret? Somehow, I feel sure it's still safe from the ninny though)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-84367628918341913632008-10-15T10:28:00.000-07:002008-10-15T10:28:00.000-07:00Practically speaking, no. I said "if he were qual...Practically speaking, no. I said "if he were qualified," which he admits to -- and is indeed proud of -- not being. There are obviously places for someone of his stature to begin a religious practice, but it would not be here.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-75283128900215303812008-10-15T10:16:00.000-07:002008-10-15T10:16:00.000-07:00Wow, the book is so bad that you won't let anyone ...Wow, the book is so bad that you won't let anyone who doesn't already agree read it?!<BR/><BR/>I'm glad I don't possess the churchonomicron degree, high-horse riders license, or holier-than-thou tenure that would make me eligible to know the title of this book in which I have completely lost interest. Play spiritual judge and God will surely thank you for relieving him of tough work.<BR/><BR/>I stumbled across this blog while browsing for more information about the religious extremist/terrorist that sent the death threat to Bill Maher (I guess you're not the only one who missed the point). I commented in hopes that this film would be mentally revisited for its intent instead of its potential to offend.<BR/><BR/>The only reason I inquired about your book is because of your vague reference to it. You initially spoke of it as if were something of significance and in some way related to an explanation of the point (or anti-point) of Religulous, stating, "Were Maher intellectually and spiritually capable of understanding my book, he would never have made the film." Now, I can't help but wonder, was reading your book even an option for the (by degree of Gagdad, Spritual Judge and Jury) lesser spiritual being, also known as Bill Maher?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-62578254667873441412008-10-15T09:24:00.000-07:002008-10-15T09:24:00.000-07:00Perhaps. But I specifically discourage the spiritu...Perhaps. But I specifically discourage the spiritually unqualified from reading it, despite the financial consequences. In fact, I make no effort to publicize my work at all. After all, you sought me out, not vice versa. I have no control over the fact that I am not what you had hoped, but in the end, there is virtually nothing that a man like me could offer a man like you. Bygones.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-4636597409020666192008-10-15T07:11:00.000-07:002008-10-15T07:11:00.000-07:00Great! We both agree that I'm not in the business...Great! We both agree that I'm not in the business of misusing language in an irrelevant and antagonistic manner. I'm glad that we have, obviously, come to an agreement on the meaning of the term 'spiritual autism,' based upon the comparable aspects of autism and closed-minded spirituality.<BR/><BR/>I would like to compliment you on your persistent habit of dodging any statement holding significance. I will warn you though, your arguments lack every element of pith, and your shallow intellect shines through. Ignorance is obviously an abode to you, so I will not ask you to leave your home.<BR/><BR/>Your choice to remain in the dark will surely serve as an example for anyone willing to think.<BR/><BR/>P.S. Your book must really suck if you're unwilling to use an obvious, and requested, chance to market it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19993968585189487882008-10-14T09:00:00.000-07:002008-10-14T09:00:00.000-07:00Yes, at least we agree that you can't help it.Yes, at least we agree that you can't help it.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-12617021358162530852008-10-13T14:39:00.000-07:002008-10-13T14:39:00.000-07:00I can't help but think that 'spiritual autism' is ...I can't help but think that 'spiritual autism' is most truly expressed by those who think their religion and spiritual beliefs are right and everyone who doesn't agree is wrong. What book have you written that discusses the, real, cultural and historic effects of religion, in such a clearly positive way, that religion should not be questioned?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-4313945126351439292008-10-13T13:57:00.000-07:002008-10-13T13:57:00.000-07:00You've got it backward. Were Maher intellectually...You've got it backward. Were Maher intellectually and spiritually capable of understanding my book, he would never have made the film. The film is purely a monument to his own spiritual autism.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-30866412793936005672008-10-13T09:53:00.000-07:002008-10-13T09:53:00.000-07:00Try watching the movie again, whilst detaching you...Try watching the movie again, whilst detaching yourself from the bundle of nerves this film has the potential to dance on. If you can do this, you might grasp the point of the film. This was not intended to be a comedy, it was intended to be a critical analysis.<BR/><BR/>You claim that you would have liked this 'blasphemy' if it were funnier, but blasphemy isn't based in humor, nor is it intrinsically untrue.<BR/><BR/>To put things into perspective, the 'substantial beauty of Christianity (or Catholicism or Islam)' you speak of is invisible to many due to it's overtly violent, historic significance as well as it's modern attachment to a wide array of bigotry.<BR/><BR/>Why is Scientology worthy of criticism but not Christianity, Catholicism, or Islam? The latter three have undeniably caused thousands (if not millions) more deaths and obliteration of ancient cultures and history, amongst other things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-16030778506504972782008-10-01T04:39:00.000-07:002008-10-01T04:39:00.000-07:00Susannah - But if it's possible not to believe, th...Susannah - But if it's possible not to believe, then it's entirely possible for Meyers to 'desecrate the host' and not intend it "to poke God in the eye".<BR/><BR/>Belief <I>can</I> change people - but even false belief, too. Islam boasts many tales of it curing alcoholism. Belief doesn't change external reality though.<BR/><BR/>Nietzsche was a jerk, and not nearly as good a thinker as he's oft reputed, but he <I>was</I> pithy at times. As he noted, "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." In other words, just about <I>anything</I> can manifest itself to the person who 'dares to believe' first.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-29220420675193650352008-09-30T13:46:00.000-07:002008-09-30T13:46:00.000-07:00Of *course* it's possible to not believe. But the...Of *course* it's possible to not believe. But the "data points" (?) are freely available to all. Freedom does make it possible to refuse the gift of faith. It is a gift of God, you know.<BR/><BR/>It's hard for me, a lifelong believer, to understand why some spend their entire lives hanging back and essentially asking why God doesn't force them to believe. <BR/><BR/>But then there are a whole lot of emotional and spiritual forces at play. <BR/><BR/>Emotional forces resulting from experience, that obscure a clear vision of the glory of God by essentially anthropomorphizing him. <BR/><BR/>Spiritual forces that actively seek to steal, kill, and destroy--that want you to believe a lie.<BR/><BR/>And probably more than that.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that there must be at base a willingness to assent to God's Word. Each man must "choose this day": Trust God, or his own puny intellect? Serve God, or self?<BR/><BR/>More Smith, for Ray:<BR/><BR/>"'Have faith.'" It isn't saying you must stir up faith. Faith is God in the human vessel, in the one who *believes in his heart.* It is a grasping of the eternal God. 'This is the victory that overcometh the world, *even* our faith" (1 John 5:4b). He who believes overcomes the world. 'Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Romans 10:17). He who believes in his heart! Can you imagine anything easier than that? He who believes in his heart!<BR/><BR/>"What is the process by which this comes to pass? Death! No, one can remain alive who believes in his heart. He dies to everything worldly. He who loves the world is not of God. You can measure the whole thing and examine yourself to see if you have faith. Faith is a life. Faith enables you to lay hold of that which is [spiritual death] and get it out of the way for God to bring in something that is not [eternal life]."<BR/><BR/>"Faith is the substance of things hoped for. Someone said to me one day, 'I would not believe in anything I could not handle and see.' Everything you can handle and see is temporary and will perish with the using. But the things not seen are eternal and will not fade away. Are you dealing with tangible things or with the things which are eternal, the things that are facts, that are made real by faith?<BR/><BR/>Thank God that through the knowledge of the truth of the Son of God, I have within me a greater power, a mightier working, an inward impact of life, of power, of vision, and of truth more real than anyone can know who lives in the realm of the tangible. God manifests himself to the person who dares to believe."Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-69615434410632734562008-09-30T12:58:00.000-07:002008-09-30T12:58:00.000-07:00And btw, though I've got nothing but my personal i...And btw, though I've got nothing but my personal inkling to go on, I imagine that Quantum Mechanics is nothing but the subatomic equivalent of epicycles – it’s a functional explanation which aides our navigation of physics, and is the best we are capable of at this point, prior to our grasping some huge ‘quantum’ leap of understanding we are still clueless about being ignorant of.<BR/><BR/>One day teachers will say to their giggling students <I>“Oh, if you think the epicycles explanations for planets going backwards in the sky was silly, wait until I tell you how people used to explain [insert impressive sounding name here] Law… they called it ‘Quantum Mechanics’, and they used this really goofy idea of Schrödinger’s Cat being alive AND dead based on your choice to illustrate it!”</I><BR/><BR/>(the school kids bust out in laughter)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-9761897599966136152008-09-30T12:57:00.000-07:002008-09-30T12:57:00.000-07:00Susannah - As I said, your preconceptions are gett...Susannah - As I said, your preconceptions are getting in the way. I happen to know from personal experience that it's possible to just not believe. I'm told many times that others have data points available to them that that don't fit my model; well, I have the converse. :-/Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-35620036537984652162008-09-30T12:52:00.000-07:002008-09-30T12:52:00.000-07:00Thomism - But epicycles use circles, the most beau...Thomism - But epicycles use <I>circles</I>, the most beautiful and perfect shape. Everything up there in the heavens is perfect, don'cha know? That's <A HREF="http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~gnewsom/Ast161/jun29.htm" REL="nofollow">why epicycles held on so long</A> - aesthetic sense driving the models despite the data.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-62265205422841604122008-09-30T12:47:00.000-07:002008-09-30T12:47:00.000-07:00In reluctant defense of Ray... or rather, in defen...In reluctant defense of Ray... or rather, in defense of the epicycles analogy (which I was using, though in a different context, before Ray happened along). Prior to Ptolemy, the situation was essentially "WTF?!", in comparison, epicycles were a far more elegant, and functional, explanation than what came before, and of course Kepler was orders of magnitude more elegant than that - in reverse order, sort of like Grace Kelly in a gown as compared to Brittany Spears in sweats (you know the rehearsal video) as compared to yoko in (shudder) the raw.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45368465484242593452008-09-30T11:52:00.000-07:002008-09-30T11:52:00.000-07:00Ray, Seriously, you've gotta dump that epicycles-w...Ray, <BR/><BR/>Seriously, you've gotta dump that epicycles-were-beautiful line. They were hideous, and only a small fixture of a larger, more hideous looking ore-Keplarian astronomy. Inner and outer planets moving in different directions, epicycles upon epicycles, nothing at the ceter of the world-system (which didn't have a real name, since no one could figure out how it could be one thing), Copernicus invoking oval-orbits (what's an oval, mathematically?) An indifference to epicycle accounts and world-off-center accounts, the absurdity of the size required for the epicycle of Venus... <BR/><BR/>All this is simpler, more clear, and more elegant and more radiant than Kepler's three laws? Even the dullest aesthetic sense could see the ugliness of Ptolomy when put next to Kepler. I'd argue that beauty is an infallible guide to truth, or at least the best we have, but that's for another time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-3030200974237790912008-09-30T11:38:00.000-07:002008-09-30T11:38:00.000-07:00Nope, Ray. :) *If* God exists (and he does, that...Nope, Ray. :) *If* God exists (and he does, that's a fact) that's what it boils down to. Kinda like running down a bunch of bunny trails to avoid having to submit to the main point.Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-44385576071481128462008-09-30T11:37:00.000-07:002008-09-30T11:37:00.000-07:00Ray, Epicycles are not more beautiful than Kepler'...Ray, <BR/><BR/>Epicycles are not more beautiful than Kepler's Laws. <BR/><BR/>Duh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com