Comments on: Bad Faith Believers: Preist Richard Neuhaus Fantasizes about you Prostrate and Begging

By: Student “Kidnaps” Eucharist: Catholic Controversy Conundrum « The Bad Idea Blog

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:55:48 +0000

[...] and embarrassing from the outside. I’m very much reminded of Father Cantalamessa, who seemed to believe that the only intellectually legitimate or honest atheist was one writhing in apologetic agony at [...]

By: frodo441

frodo441 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:02:33 +0000

Mr. Neuhaus (to reiterate) is closer to the generations of popular existentialism that morphed it’s way (back during the depression) into the performance artistic recalcitrance of Dadist artists…and back then there are a significant number in the populations that don’t appreciate Dadism. I myself bare witness to post industrialized nations that bore the existentialists because that is the traditional vehicle that produces existentialists. Existentialists most popularly grew and became noted during the 1905 era of post modernistic modes of living. I feel that the Danish philosopher Keirkengaards’ reticulations as a Christian existentialist, were vindicated and validated by Sartre’s pseudo-politicalization of the existential movement in France. While Keirkengaard dealt with his Christian reticulations in a rapidly changing society, and a Theological movement in Germany during the 19th century, through a mid century movement in France of Theosophy, “the names of God”…a much more pragmatic understanding of an American design of the “tongue in cheek” approach to religion during the 19th century…people were bound to break the hold of dogmatic mind vice thinking along religious terms in this century of American history…set up an increasingly evolving vernacular of change into 1905 post modern Era existentialism in which people began to question the rites and rituals of mechanical oblations to social constraints felt within an ever changing societal norms and applications of living styles.

By: frodo441

frodo441 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:40:37 +0000

Granted…but when people profess a conviction without knowing the reticulations of historical events and extemporaneous datum, we come perilously close to the precipice of “social Darwinism…” If we dispel and dispense wholesaley contemporary movements in history (extemporaneous datum) we don’t have a “feel” for the very real prospects of the amounts and types of changes that have gone on in the world…indeed, Sometimes more often than not, many people in contemporary societies make convictions on a conceived conventional wisdom according to their own understanding…this is the phenomenon of desiring “the pill of totality” for the “cup of reason” and a “trendy consciousness.” Of course, reality in the world is best summed up by a Shintu’ priest who teaches his disciples that “you cannot make up words.” Compounded by the reticulations of Krisna Murti…”there is no such thing as consciousness”…”consciousness is content.” Ergo: We end up saving an Elysian field of dreams (the blessings of the dead).

By: Carnival of the Godless: The Book of ‘Pod Edition | Mind on Fire.

Carnival of the Godless: The Book of ‘Pod Edition | Mind on Fire. — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:10:21 +0000

[...] Bad Faith Believers: Preist Richard Neuhaus Fantasizes about you Prostrate and Begging [...]

By: hughvic

hughvic — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:03:09 +0000

It came through at this end loud and clear both times, TR, and Bad I know to be familiar with the distinction, but it’s not Bad’s distinction. To me, each needs a descriptor, and hence the parochial & vernacular distinction between “agnostic” (no such conviction) and “atheist” (conviction of non-existence). However, I also believe that a higher principle (higher than adherence to the vernacular) requires that we respect a person’s right to name himself for himself. Granted, language is a social project, not a matter of personal caprice, but the elliptical definitions I’ve placed in parentheses beside these two words don’t accurately denote the words’ respective etymological meanings anyway. So I conclude that when conversing with Bad I’d do well to use Bad’s definition of an atheist, and when conversing with others I’ll expressly take into account Bad’s self-definition.

American Atheists are moving for freer exercise of their beliefs, and I’m all for it. My ancestors came to these shores because they were hunted in the Old Country for their own beliefs, and their descendants fought repeatedly to ensure that this generation enjoy free exercise. I personally happen to enjoy it immensely! I wouldn’t think of begrudging anyone else the same pleasure, and evidently you wouldn’t do so either.

Incidentally, I like your Amish example. I happen to’ve been trained in church/state conflict, and it occurred to me during that training to make a special study of the Hutterites, the oldest order of Moravians. Their rule, a specific regimen for the prevention of “worldliness” is even more strict than that of the Old Order Amish, and is utterly inexplicable to anyone unwilling to understand them on their own terms; precisely the kind of understanding you seek with Bad. Good on you.

By: The Ridger

The Ridger — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:56:35 +0000

What I’m trying to say is, that for many theists “I don’t believe in God” parses the same as when a reporter says “The Amish don’t believe in automobiles or cell phones.” Of course they do. They reject them - that’s what their “don’t believe” means. So many theists parse an atheist’s “I don’t believe in God” to mean “I reject God”.

But rejecting something isn’t the same as thinking it doesn’t exist. I don’t believe God exists. That’s different from rejecting God.

That’s all. It’s a question of what they hear more than what we say.

By: Bad

Bad — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:00:07 +0000

Ah, oops.

By: hughvic

hughvic — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:56:05 +0000

You answered my question at the moment I asked it! Ships in passing.

By: Bad

Bad — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:31:21 +0000

I’m not sure what you are asking, hughvic?

By: hughvic

hughvic — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:51:03 +0000

In re The Ridger, Bad, I believe that you say differently. Do tell.

By: Bad

Bad — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:51:01 +0000

I would say that being an atheist means not believing in a God, period, which includes your definition.

By: The Ridger

The Ridger — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:01:00 +0000

If you believe that God has rejected you, you’re not an atheist. If you’re angry at God, or hate him, you’re not an atheist.

This inability to discern which sense of “don’t believe in” is atheism and which isn’t is endemic among theists. After all, we “don’t believe in” many things that we admit exist - it’s a common usage (for example, many people “don’t believe in” under-age drinking, abortion, eating meat, using technology, having kids … but none would deny those things exist.)

But being an atheist means thinking (to one degree of certainty or another) that God *does not exist*. Period.