Josiah Wilkes wrote on 9 July 2010, 23:09:49 EDT
My E-mail: hairygoliwog@hotmail.com
My URL: http://youth-fire.yolasite.com/
My Location (City, State, etc.): Gosford, NSW, Australia
How did you find me?: Google
Do you like my site?: yes
Will you visit again?: probably
Will you recommend site to others?: no
Do you think I'm insane?: no
Comments:
Hey, I just read your analysis of psalm 14. I think its great that an atheist is bold enough to interpret the bible , i think us Christians could learn a lot from you. Please continue interpreting different parts of the bible its great to see other peoples point of view even if i disagree :)
Webmaster's Response:
I'm pleased you found something of value in "A Literary Analysis of Psalm 14," my interpretive close reading paper examining the true meaning and purpose of Psalm 14 ("The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God") for English 371, Literary Study of the Bible, an upper-level literature course taught by Dr. Christopher Hodgkins, written on 3 June 2008 at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Also, I'm gratified by your enthusiastic encouragement of my wee foray into Biblical exegesis; perhaps all of the few Christians who have expressed an opinion are generally offended by my use of Scripture on this site. I have observed that most Christians, as well as other religionists, and too many of my fellow atheists would do well to read the Bible and other religious texts with the same attitude I employ. As the Devil quotes Scripture for his own devices, you ain't seen nothing yet...
— The Compleat Heretic
Chris Gilmore wrote on 27 June 2010, 17:24:38 EDT
My E-mail: Intel_Thug@ntlworld.com
My Location (City, State, etc.): Bedford, UK
How did you find me?: surfing
Do you like my site?: not seen enough
Will you visit again?: perhaps
Will you recommend site to others?: unlikely
Do you think I'm insane?: no
Comments:
I'm a thoroughgoing right-winger, and have for a long time been irritated by the expression 'religious right', as I'm also an extreme Humean deist. (The distinction between that position and total atheism of the Dawkins/Hitchens/Pullman school is extremely small and entirely metaphysical - it has no moral dimension at all.)
I am also, I suspect, a lot less opposed to abortion than yourself or most of your members, because I don't believe in 'the sanctity of life' (the term 'sanctity' implying a belief in God which I don't hold). However, I dislike and despise phony logic, and I note that the 'woman's right to choose' brigade deploy phony logic almost exclusively.
For instance, you may be familiar with the 'hair and beard paradox'. (It's not a true paradox, just a trap for the unwary, but so it is known.) You ask someone, 'Would you say that a man who had just one hair on his chin was in possession of a beard?' Most people would reply, 'No,' whereupon you ask, 'Well, how about two hairs?' and so forth. Sooner or later your victim must acknowledge that some number of hairs does constitute a beard, whereupon you have him - for can he say at first blush that he can distinguish between (say) 16 and 17 hairs? The only logically defensible answer is that one hair constitutes a (minimal) beard, and by analogy, a human life begins once the sperm penetrates the egg.
Other phony logics that I have encountered include the observation that embryos and early-stage foetuses are incapable of independent existence, and as such mere extensions of the woman's body. But this is fallacious, as new-born babies are just as incapable. Dump one in a field or a city street, and see how long it lasts, if there is no-one to succour it.
There is also the observation that the early stages, having no nervous system, are incapable of feeling pain. Well-a-day! I suppose that if someone were to waft halothane through my window to render me unconscious, then inject me with a powerful general anaesthetic, and proceed to behead me with a greenwood saw, I would feel no pain either. That might be a mitigating circumstance in the subsequent trial for murder, but hardly an excuse. The wrongness of the murder consists not in any cruelty, but in depriving me of my life, and all the potential attaching thereto.
The word 'potential' is crucial. No one objects to the casual incineration of the afterbirth (or among certain gung-ho Americans the consumption of it, fried with onions), because it has neither consciousness nor potential, even though it consists exclusively of living human cells.
Likewise, I myself an a proponent of capital punishment for certain extremely heinous crimes, on the grounds that the perpetrator cannot possibly have sufficient potential for good to counterbalance the evil he has done. Here I most likely part company with many of your members, and perhaps yourself.
Even more, I support abortion on 'eugenic' grounds - i.e., when the foetus, if brought to term and born alive, would be very severely handicapped - deaf and blind, quadriplegic, conjoined and incomplete twins, for instance. But the condition needs to be very severe, and there must be no question of its character. Operable condition such as cleft palate, club foot or superfluous fingers/nipples would not be grounds.
Aho! Enough, for the time being. I'm an old sf buff, and much of my thinking shows the influence of J W Campbell's editorials in ASF, plus the assumptions of the writers he nurtured - notably Poul Anderson, Robert Heinlein, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Jack Vance - irreligious right-wingers to a man.
Webmaster's Response:
Hmm, a visitor from my poor, long-neglected Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League which is an online organization of nontheistic and nonreligious pro-life/anti-abortion advocates "because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being." A wee bit verbose for a guestbook entry, but at least it's on topic. I generally concur with the arguments put forth, though the use of "'eugenic'" gives me pause, but the single quotes somewhat redeem it. As for the placenta and umbilical cord, they are fetal organs which lose their purpose after birth, thus have no moral/ethical significance; we all bear the amputation scar from our first surgery. Finally, I am on record supporting the death penalty: The Necessity of Capital Punishment.
— The Compleat Heretic
anastasia wrote on 28 January 2010, 14:09:56 EST
My Location (City, State, etc.): USA
Comments:
Sorry, for off top, i wanna tell I consider, that you are mistaken. I can prove it. Write to me, we will communicate.
Webmaster's Response:
Specifics and a valid e-mail address would be helpful.
— The Compleat Heretic
Justin wrote on 10 January 2010, 13:00:52 EST
My E-mail: kayakmac08@hotmail.com
My Location (City, State, etc.): Columbus, Ohio
How did you find me?: I was doing a web search for essays written on Jonathan Swift's "A Lady's Dressing Room"
Do you like my site?: Yes
Will you visit again?: Possibly (I'll at least bookmark it)
Will you recommend site to others?: Honestly, no, but only because I don't have any friends who would be interested.
Do you think I'm insane?: only slightly
Comments:
An ENTJ, I could have guessed that. I like your writing and envy how you are able to match artistic flair with an effortless logic. And of course, I am surprised you embrace Christian morality. Are you a consequentialist? Have you ever read Ayn Rand?
Webmaster's Response:
Yes, ENTJ is consistent, thus apparently dominant; consider yourselves warned...
Hmm, I may well have referred to my personal ethical code as being akin to Christian morality somewhere in the pages of this site which is an error I must correct; such a characterization would be truly perverse coming from an avowed atheist and a declared anti-Christian. Even where Christianity appears to get it right, it does so for the wrong reason; Christians value real life only in so much as it serves their desire to attain some purported eternal life. Christian otherworldliness renders all of its valuations suspect. (Please refer to Christian Nihilism in George Herbert's "Death".)
On the contrary, the starting point of my philosophy is the fact that real life is our only life. Accordingly, the foundation of my ethical theory is:
Whatever affirms life is good and is to be embraced and defended at all times; and
whatever denies life is evil and is to be opposed always . . . and destroyed when possible.
I suppose there is a label one could apply to that formula, but labels are ultimately inadequate, and are used all too often either to cloak one's laziness or to display one's pretentiousness.
I nibbled at Ayn Rand's work when I was a teenager long, long ago, but she didn't quite take, even though some of my views line up with hers. As I'm now solidly middle-aged, I probably should allow her a mature audience. All the same, like so many of us, she was a terribly flawed human being who managed to get some of it right in spite of herself...
— The Compleat Heretic
J. Gelardos wrote on 27 December 2009, 02:32:41 EST
My E-mail: jgelardos@yahoo.com
My Location (City, State, etc.): VA and NC
How did you find me?: www.conservativeatheist.com
Do you like my site?: Absolutely
Will you visit again?: Very Likely
Will you recommend site to others?: Yes
Do you think I'm insane?: Only if I am as well.
Comments:
It is refreshing to know that I am not the only atheist out there who does not toe the party line! I am amazed at how much I have in common with you; aside from your web-design skills and your age that would be just about everything. I appreciate where you come from as a veteran as I am a currently serving active duty Marine.
Keep up the great work!
Webmaster's Response:
Hearing from my fellow conservative atheists always validates the time, effort, and expense of maintaining this site.
— The Compleat Heretic
Nimaavact wrote on 5 November 2009, 14:07:10 EST
My Location (City, State, etc.): Argentina
Comments:
Maybe, but i'm sceptic. Your articulation is graceful, but the tournament is fairly hards as i see.
Webmaster's Response:
Hmm, apparently the translation isn't quite what it should be, but I think I get the gist of it.
— The Compleat Heretic
Stakan wrote on 2 November 2009, 06:11:42 EST
My Location (City, State, etc.): Münchenstein
Comments:
He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.
Webmaster's Response:
This quote is from Chapter 14 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by British humorist and science fiction novelist Douglas Adams (1952-2001). It is a reference to Zaphod Beeblebrox made within the interior monologue of Ford Prefect and is clearly meant to be a left-handed compliment. As I have a vague recollection from the early 'Eighties of one of my fellow Rocky Horror Picture Show regulars favorably comparing me to Zaphod and of my accepting such a comparison even though it was clearly meant to be a left-handed compliment as well, I'll take it as such now. I need to dig up my old copy of The More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide and refresh my memory...
— The Compleat Heretic
Ruby wrote on 3 October 2009, 10:51:04 EDT
My E-mail: ruby7829@comcast.net
My Location (City, State, etc.): Just off the coast...MA
How did you find me?: ...surfing haikus
Will you visit again?: Yes
Will you recommend site to others?: not really, nothing personal, I don't speak to many.
Do you think I'm insane?: Hope not, how would that reflect on me?
Comments:
A short note to thank you for sharing your Haiku. Enjoyed them. Ever thought of expressing through them again? You've a site to post them & I would visit to read new ones. Taken on a project of writing them myself & few others (english versions) have provided a 'leap' towards expanding ideas within my works.
Webmaster's Response:
I'm pleased you gained something from my haiku: Collected Haiku: Winter/Spring 1978, Japanese Exercises, and even The Publisher. I may return to the form in the future if I have a coherent project in mind that could make use of it. As it is currently, most of my literary studies and efforts are centered on fiction writing.
— The Compleat Heretic
