[QUOTE=Miller]
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Your ability to split hairs is truly remarkable.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, he’s kind of got you there.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Actually, he’s kind of got you there.
[/QUOTE]
You think so? He says all theists lack the ability to change their mind. Unlike theists, he has this ability. It’s clearly inferred (although, admittedly, not explicitly stated) that it’s better to have this ability than to not have this ability. Therefore, he’s better than all theists. That doesn’t strike me as a particularly convoluted interpretation. Rather, I’d say it’s the clearest, plain-text meaning of the post. But, if enough people who are smarter than Shirley (a generously low bar by any estimation) say that I’m wrong, I’ll retract that portion of my statements.
[QUOTE=Miller]
But, if enough people who are smarter than Shirley (a generously low bar by any estimation) say that I’m wrong, I’ll retract that portion of my statements.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t get all friskey yet. And I am more than proud to meet that bar.
Oh, wait, I see what you’re saying. I was incorrect in saying that he said he’s better than theists simply because he doesn’t believe in God. What I should have said is, “He thinks he’s better than theists on the basis of a negative character flaw that he’s invented and applied to all theists, for the express purpose of providing a reason for his supposed superiority.” The bit about “being better simply because he’s an atheist,” is the obvious motive for the statement, but was not contained explicitly within the statement itself.
I regret any confusion the error may have caused.
deleted on preview
Response to a deleted comment deleted.
[QUOTE=Miller]
It’s clearly inferred (although, admittedly, not explicitly stated) that it’s better to have this ability than to not have this ability. Therefore, he’s better than all theists.
[/QUOTE]
Your conclusion does not realistically follow your premise. I have many abilities that other individuals don’t have and I believe I’m better off for having some of those abilities. Does that mean I think I’m better than all people who don’t have any particular ability that I have? Of course not. I don’t think I’m better than people who have less abilities in almost all cognitive areas, such as the mentally disabled. But to take it a step further, you claimed that DCMS said that he was intrinsically better, making your inference even harder to extrapolate from his actual statement.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Your conclusion does not realistically follow your premise. I have many abilities that other individuals don’t have and I believe I’m better off for having some of those abilities. Does that mean I think I’m better than all people who don’t have any particular ability that I have? Of course not. I don’t think I’m better than people who have less abilities in almost all cognitive areas, such as the mentally disabled. But to take it a step further, you claimed that DCMS said that he was intrinsically better, making your inference even harder to extrapolate from his actual statement.
[/QUOTE]
And, I would further note that I did not claim I have an ability that the theists do not, I claimed I was willing to do something that they were not. There is a big difference between “unwilling” and “unable” to do something. No doubt Miller substituted “ability” for “will” (post 302) to further demonize my thoughts.
Heck, I’m better than theists.
Of course, I’m better than 99% of humanity in any event.
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Your conclusion does not realistically follow your premise. I have many abilities that other individuals don’t have and I believe I’m better off for having some of those abilities. Does that mean I think I’m better than all people who don’t have any particular ability that I have? Of course not. I don’t think I’m better than people who have less abilities in almost all cognitive areas, such as the mentally disabled. But to take it a step further, you claimed that DCMS said that he was intrinsically better, making your inference even harder to extrapolate from his actual statement.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I retract the claim that he explicitly said that he thinks he’s better than theists, but I maintain that it can be easily (and accurately) inferred by the tone and context of that and other posts in this thread.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
What, you think being shot hurts less than being eaten? :eek:
[/QUOTE]
No, of course not, but that raises another question or three.
Why were RC children taught to avoid chewing the host? Was chewing supposed to be painful, or just disrspectful?
And at what point, exactly, does the reversion to ordinary matter occur? Right upon swallowing? When it hits stomach acid? When it is fully consumed by acid? I trust that people know by now about conservation of matter. (I wonder, though, if theologians during and before the Middle Ages did.) The alternative to reversion would be that more and more matter would be turned into B&B.
With regard to the Last Supper joke up above, I doubt very much that when the bread was broken it formed into little, flat, melt-in-your-mouth disks. The apostles would have had to chew it. Yeeeouch!
Better to just be stuffed in someone’s nose, actually. 
- TBJ
[QUOTE=Miller]
I maintain that it can be easily (and accurately) inferred by the tone and context of that and other posts in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Seriously? I just went over all of his posts in this thread and I’m not seeing it. Can you point any of these posts out to me?
[QUOTE=Miller]
Fair enough. I retract the claim that he explicitly said that he thinks he’s better than theists, but I maintain that it can be easily (and accurately) inferred by the tone and context of that and other posts in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
It’s kind of ironic that you won’t bring yourself to admit error.
[QUOTE=True Blue Jack]
Why were RC children taught to avoid chewing the host? Was chewing supposed to be painful, or just disrspectful?
[/QUOTE]
Certainly not the former, perhaps a little bit of the latter.
It was never considered truly disrespectful to chew the host, but there might have been a (Jansenist inspired) feeling that one should not engage in too many “common” actions in regards to communion–such as actually chewing.
Presumably it is also frowned upon to gargle the blood.
[QUOTE=True Blue Jack]
And at what point, exactly, does the reversion to ordinary matter occur? Right upon swallowing? When it hits stomach acid? When it is fully consumed by acid? I trust that people know by now about conservation of matter. (I wonder, though, if theologians during and before the Middle Ages did.) The alternative to reversion would be that more and more matter would be turned into B&B
[/QUOTE]
I suspect you’ll find, as with most points at which science and religion intersect, that religious dogma simply won’t dovetail neatly with logic.
The inescapable conclusion to the literal approach to transubstantiation is that at some point Our Lord and Savior is a turd.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Presumably it is also frowned upon to gargle the blood.
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s actually approved. In CCD we were taught to gargle and say a few words of Scripture. “It sounds just like Jesus when talked into a fan,” the nuns assured us.
[QUOTE=SkipMagic]
No, that’s actually approved. In CCD we were taught to gargle and say a few words of Scripture. “It sounds just like Jesus when talked into a fan,” the nuns assured us.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t tell if this is a leg-pull or not.
(I’ve had some weird conversations with nuns.)
[QUOTE=x-ray vision]
Provide enough evidence to Christians that there never was a global food and some will claim that the evidence must be wrong because the Bible says so and others will distort the story beyond what’s reasonable instead of plain accepting that it’s wrong.
[/QUOTE]
But the example he gave “I changed my mind about Muslim holy pigs” is analogous to “I changed my mind about the sky being green”.
He quite plainly formed an opinion without knowing anything at all about the subject. He never bothered to consult the evidence in the first place! In essence, he was just making shit up. Then, having been proved that he was 100% factually incorrect, he acquiesces.
And now, using that as an example, he claims he’s willing to change his mind, and therefore better than theists? Hardly.
Lets play a fun little game: I believe that atheists all have 4 arms and no legs. Now, if you prove me wrong, I’ll admit my error, and ascend into the realm of enlightened people. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Sinaijon]
But the example he gave “I changed my mind about Muslim holy pigs” is analogous to “I changed my mind about the sky being green”.
He quite plainly formed an opinion without knowing anything at all about the subject. He never bothered to consult the evidence in the first place! In essence, he was just making shit up. Then, having been proved that he was 100% factually incorrect, he acquiesces.
And now, using that as an example, he claims he’s willing to change his mind, and therefore better than theists? Hardly.
Lets play a fun little game: I believe that atheists all have 4 arms and no legs. Now, if you prove me wrong, I’ll admit my error, and ascend into the realm of enlightened people. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Better analogy:
I declare that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Sombody proves me wrong. I then spend the next hundred years condemning that guy and his supporters as heretics before finally admitting my mistake.