tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post6368688243405436179..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: "Marshall is a Cowardly, Moronic Atheist."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-61703650295202921302018-05-07T05:28:18.451-07:002018-05-07T05:28:18.451-07:00Isburger: If the goose is eating bad corn, then it...Isburger: If the goose is eating bad corn, then it won't be good for the gander, either. If atheists make bad arguments attacking Christianity, that doesn't give us warrant or right to make bad arguments defending it. And we don't have to go that far, as you recognize: the history of militant communism is so awful, that the only reason New Atheism can get any mileage out of their schtick, is that history is taught so poorly and so dishonestly in our schools, IMO. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-64778361814793989002018-05-07T05:25:11.798-07:002018-05-07T05:25:11.798-07:00Theo: It was pretty clear that my critic assumed m...Theo: It was pretty clear that my critic assumed me to be one of the atheists he was attacking, on very scant evidence, and reacted in irrational rage. But that's a lesser matter here. <br /> <br />If my argument merely succeeds in encouraging Christians to argue more carefully about this, that will be enough. <br />David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73364643470373173432018-05-07T00:55:02.993-07:002018-05-07T00:55:02.993-07:00It's occurred to me as well that perhaps the 7...It's occurred to me as well that perhaps the 7% figure is a tad low, because it probably uses a very narrow definition of religion.<br /><br />But then on the other hand, our atheist interlocutors also tend to use a similarly narrow definition of religion in order to avoid their own world view from falling within the spectre of religion.<br /><br />It seems to me that this is a case of what is good for the goose has to be good for the gander too, in other words, it is incredibly likely that religion (defined in the more general "ultimate concerns" way that could well include certain godless views) does indeed cause wars and calamity on a massive scale, that indeed the second world war, the civil wars in America, the Boer war in South Africa, and so on and so forth, were indeed all religious to some extent. But this concession comes with a sting in the tail: It would mean that the atheistic religions (systems of thought) should pick up their tab too.<br /><br />In other words, I don't see this working for the atheist in either way.ispburgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16371920275211300959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-62840745936466414702018-05-06T20:49:06.913-07:002018-05-06T20:49:06.913-07:00Hi David, some interesting thoughts there on the 7...Hi David, some interesting thoughts there on the 7% figure. I have certainly been guilty of using it a little too tritely in the past, and some of the flaws you list (2,3 & 4) are definitely worth thinking about more.<br /><br />Beyond expressing my appreciation for your thoughts, I did want to comment that the way I read the second paragraph responding to you, I don't think they're attacking you in the way you've surmised.<br />Specifically, most of the points you list distilled from the second paragraph (1,3,7,8 & 9) don't read to me like they're aimed at you but at the atheists that your interlocutor is engaged with.<br /><br />The gist of it seems to be 'If you're going to crticise our defense (against the terrible argument that religion causes war) you better make it a good one ('put up or shut up') because atheists who are keen to slander religious people, keep making unsupported assertions [that religion causes war] and aren't willing to lift a finger to prove it. [So throwing it back at them with a very long and literal list is powerful, plz don't take it away].<br /><br />It's hard to tell without a broader context, but unless you argued that religion causes lots of wars, I don't think that's you.<br />There's plenty of vitriole in the rest of it, don't get me wrong, but I think your list should be a little shorter.<br />I could be wrong, language can be ambiguous, but that's how I read it, and it seems to make a fair bit of difference.Theosophocleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05245224352374546516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-83205715189894217722018-05-06T16:29:40.296-07:002018-05-06T16:29:40.296-07:00True, the analogy isn't perfect. What their s...True, the analogy isn't perfect. What their study probably does show is that there are usually other causes for most wars . . . but not exclusive of religious causes. Also not studied is what wars Christianity may end, or what righteous wars bad religious ideas may prevent . . . The matter is very complex, and needs to be treated as such, IMO. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23186986645851463292018-05-06T15:38:34.144-07:002018-05-06T15:38:34.144-07:00Regarding (1), the authors of The Encyclopedia of ...Regarding (1), the authors of The Encyclopedia of Wars may not be authorities on religion but they appear to be historians. I think that gives them more credibility on their subject than Richard Dawkins has on philosophy. Do you need to be an authority on religion to know whether it was a cause of a war?<br /><br />This isn't to say your other points aren't valid. But isn't there a middle ground between dismissing The Encyclopedia of Wars entirely and accepting it as a definitive study?Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.com