Evolution
November 8, 2003 | 28 Comments
The Secularist Critique returned recently after a five month hiatus. As the changing subtitles of his blog demonstrate, he’s undergone an interesting form of evolution
November 8, 2003 | 28 Comments
The Secularist Critique returned recently after a five month hiatus. As the changing subtitles of his blog demonstrate, he’s undergone an interesting form of evolution
November 8th, 2003 @ 9:49 pm
Here’s another select quote: ” faith is a kind of knowledge, and even probably the most common form of knowledge, making up the majority of all that we claim to know. ”
That’s easy to prove. For instance, reason tells me that “1+1=2″, but FAITH lets me know that “1+1=3″, “1+1=4″, and “1+1=5″. See? Three times as much knowledge.
November 8th, 2003 @ 9:49 pm
You forgot the subtitle “deconstructing secularism”
November 9th, 2003 @ 12:00 am
First the Tridentine rite is restored, next thing you know they’ll start pushing Triclavianism! By God, we must stop these secularists from becoming liturgists!
November 9th, 2003 @ 1:20 am
Why is it that rabid religious folk tend to base their criticisms of atheism and secularism on their artificial reduction to yet another religion? Ignorance or hypocrisy? Either way, it smacks of deperation to me.
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:14 am
“if God were to be proven, it would not be God. If God could be comprehended, what you comprehend would not be God.”
Do I sense another title label change coming up soon that mentions Taoism?
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:14 am
“if God were to be proven, it would not be God. If God could be comprehended, what you comprehend would not be God.”
Do I sense another title label change coming up soon that mentions Taoism?
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:14 am
“if God were to be proven, it would not be God. If God could be comprehended, what you comprehend would not be God.”
Do I sense another title label change coming up soon that mentions Taoism?
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:14 am
“if God were to be proven, it would not be God. If God could be comprehended, what you comprehend would not be God.”
Do I sense another title label change coming up soon that mentions Taoism?
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:14 am
“if God were to be proven, it would not be God. If God could be comprehended, what you comprehend would not be God.”
Do I sense another title label change coming up soon that mentions Taoism?
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:14 am
“if God were to be proven, it would not be God. If God could be comprehended, what you comprehend would not be God.”
Do I sense another title label change coming up soon that mentions Taoism?
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:25 am
And for extra points:
Find the “ontological” problem in the claim that theism has a foundation, but you cannot argue, prove, or even comprehend what that foundation is.
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:25 am
And for extra points:
Find the “ontological” problem in the claim that theism has a foundation, but you cannot argue, prove, or even comprehend what that foundation is.
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:25 am
And for extra points:
Find the “ontological” problem in the claim that theism has a foundation, but you cannot argue, prove, or even comprehend what that foundation is.
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:25 am
And for extra points:
Find the “ontological” problem in the claim that theism has a foundation, but you cannot argue, prove, or even comprehend what that foundation is.
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:25 am
And for extra points:
Find the “ontological” problem in the claim that theism has a foundation, but you cannot argue, prove, or even comprehend what that foundation is.
November 9th, 2003 @ 9:25 am
And for extra points:
Find the “ontological” problem in the claim that theism has a foundation, but you cannot argue, prove, or even comprehend what that foundation is.
November 9th, 2003 @ 4:48 pm
God doesn’t need no stinking foundation.
November 9th, 2003 @ 5:19 pm
Yeah, it’s Gods all the way down!
November 9th, 2003 @ 6:33 pm
Uh, June? It should be clear that God is the foundation, not held up by (or in charge of) one. But I assume that as you are unable to comprehend my comments, this makes me (your) god.
No need to fret, as I am not a vengeful deity. I do however expect many offerings. Virginal ones get my attention quickest.
November 9th, 2003 @ 6:33 pm
Uh, June? It should be clear that God is the foundation, not held up by (or in charge of) one. But I assume that as you are unable to comprehend my comments, this makes me (your) god.
No need to fret, as I am not a vengeful deity. I do however expect many offerings. Virginal ones get my attention quickest.
November 9th, 2003 @ 6:33 pm
Uh, June? It should be clear that God is the foundation, not held up by (or in charge of) one. But I assume that as you are unable to comprehend my comments, this makes me (your) god.
No need to fret, as I am not a vengeful deity. I do however expect many offerings. Virginal ones get my attention quickest.
November 9th, 2003 @ 6:33 pm
Uh, June? It should be clear that God is the foundation, not held up by (or in charge of) one. But I assume that as you are unable to comprehend my comments, this makes me (your) god.
No need to fret, as I am not a vengeful deity. I do however expect many offerings. Virginal ones get my attention quickest.
November 9th, 2003 @ 6:33 pm
Uh, June? It should be clear that God is the foundation, not held up by (or in charge of) one. But I assume that as you are unable to comprehend my comments, this makes me (your) god.
No need to fret, as I am not a vengeful deity. I do however expect many offerings. Virginal ones get my attention quickest.
November 9th, 2003 @ 6:33 pm
Uh, June? It should be clear that God is the foundation, not held up by (or in charge of) one. But I assume that as you are unable to comprehend my comments, this makes me (your) god.
No need to fret, as I am not a vengeful deity. I do however expect many offerings. Virginal ones get my attention quickest.
November 9th, 2003 @ 7:48 pm
I actually have no problem acknowledging myself as the most powerful being in the universe. After all, “I” am literally a part of the universe, indistinct from other matter- “I”am sentient, thus universe is sentient. I’m sort of trapped in this teeny body, but I can move some things around, think, carry out some simple plans, basically be the quintessential human being- it’s fun.
I am not all that powerful, unless I’m compared to the mythical beings thought up by other people who do *not* realize they are the universe. Example; if you wrong me so badly I say your’e going to feel my vengeance, it’s not going to be in a poetic “someday, probably after you die, your soul will be unhappy” way, it’s going to be in a right now “oh man that really hurts” way. And if I think you’re cool and say I’m going to be nice to you, it won’t be in a “I gave your daughter cancer in spite of your prayers because I’m am mysterious and have fkucde-up motives” way, it’ll be in a “dinner is on me, here I got you a birthday present” kinda way.
Yet people don’t pray to me….. odd.
November 9th, 2003 @ 8:44 pm
Like A Moth To A Flame
Well, I took two days off to go up to Tucson and attend an old friend’s wedding. We had a great time – but I lost two day’s worth of writing time for NaNoWriMo. Curses! And now, thanks to The…
November 9th, 2003 @ 8:55 pm
I would go so far as to say that if God were to be proven, it would not be God. If God could be comprehended, what you comprehend would not be God. It would be something on the same level as you, something occupying the same ontological level in the hierarchy of being. More probably it would be something lower than you (but I am probably already vexing the atheists with my audacity in speaking about higher and lower things; its not PC to state that things are greater or less).
Is this guy really a Catholic? If any understanding of God is “lower” than man, then the Bible (an attempted understanding of God) must be low. Pretty damn low.
November 18th, 2003 @ 9:34 am
Vox Popularitas
Vox Day of Vox Popoli, for all of his formidable use of the english language and claims of Mensa membership, makes some pretty basic errors when attempting to show that atheists are irrational in his November 16, 2003 column entitled…