Comments on: Atheism, Book II

by: caveat bettor

Sun, 20 May 2007 02:17:39 +0000

I was thinking that wisdom and dog-whispering could, in fact, be mutually exclusive from each other.

That got me thinking, does love require faith? And if so, are empiricists unable to love?

by: caveat bettor

Sun, 20 May 2007 02:06:33 +0000

Christopher, you sound so wise, yet like one who has never been true soulmates with a dog.

My wife were afraid that we wouldn’t love our children (we have 2) as much as our rottweiler (and I am afraid that we were somewhat correct to be afraid).

Is Laozi a religious or irreligious citation?

by: Christopher

Sat, 19 May 2007 22:08:17 +0000

“The universe remains indifferent.”

Indeed, as Laozi said, 天地不仁，以萬物為芻狗 (Heaven and Earth are inhumane, they treat the myriad things as straw dogs).

Caveat bettor, some of us would be awfully happy if there were to be something, but see no reason to believe there will be.

And though I think the sentence “Canines on the other hand, celebrate teleology” is absurd, I enjoyed reading it .

by: caveat bettor

Sat, 19 May 2007 11:55:40 +0000

Viruses do not subscribe to teleological arguments either. They indifferently go about their business.

Canines on the other hand, celebrate teleology. Loyalty, social order, sex–all meaningful to dogs, based on what the see, and even more, upon what they smell.

We have once camp of humans who are dogs. Another camp who are viral.

At the end of our existence, it all goes back into the box, like a board game–I believe that most american theists and atheists agree that we don’t take anything with us when we die. Viruses hope there is nothing after life. It is an oxymoronic hope. To hope for nothing, I mean. But that is our logical choice–we hope for something, or hope for nothing.

by: Todd Seavey

Fri, 18 May 2007 21:06:26 +0000

I don’t believe in teleology either. Individuals use baloney and bologna for their own, human, ends. The universe remains indifferent.

by: jenny

Fri, 18 May 2007 20:51:37 +0000

well, thank heavens i’m nontheistic. otherwise someone might think i have a fully functional nuclear armament program, the engineering difficulties notwithstanding.

is baloney teleologically different than bologna?

by: caveat bettor

Fri, 18 May 2007 17:41:35 +0000

OK, Todd, but I still really like your blog, even with all the baloney (and yes, I do have a minor voluntary role).

My only nuke is Pascal’s Wager.

by: Todd Seavey

Fri, 18 May 2007 17:25:40 +0000

Not merely _conflating_, caveat bettor: obviously, I am accusing you, personally, of _actually possessing_ nuclear weapons. How you built them I don’t know, your intentions for them I cannot begin to guess, but from everything I said above (carefully read), I think it’s pretty clear I’m just hoping you’ll choose not to use them. Most likely, the CIA would be unable to track you down if you deployed them, since — as I think I have stated unequivocally — you are indistinguishable from Iranian and Pakistani generals, at least to my eyes.

by: caveat bettor

Fri, 18 May 2007 16:50:50 +0000

Todd, you’re now conflating me with theists who have nukes?

by: Todd Seavey

Fri, 18 May 2007 14:02:35 +0000

I will say this, though: in the grand scheme of things, you know, the religious right, they’re not so bad.