Comments for Randal Rauser http://randalrauser.com Home of progressively evangelical, generously orthodox, rigorously analytic, revolutionary Christian thinking (that's what I'm aiming for anyway) Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:17:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on More on Mormons, atheism and aliens by pete http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/more-on-mormons-atheism-and-aliens/#comment-19302 pete Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:17:44 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5755#comment-19302 "Supernatural" is also a tough term when talking about Mormons. They tend to be strict physicalists, who think that spirits are really made of matter "finer than most people can see. Only the purest eyes can see it" As such, there really isn't much of a distinction between aliens, poltergeists, you, me, or god on their platform. The difference is evolution “Supernatural” is also a tough term when talking about Mormons.

They tend to be strict physicalists, who think that spirits are really made of matter “finer than most people can see. Only the purest eyes can see it”

As such, there really isn’t much of a distinction between aliens, poltergeists, you, me, or god on their platform.

The difference is evolution

]]> Comment on More on Mormons, atheism and aliens by Beetle http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/more-on-mormons-atheism-and-aliens/#comment-19300 Beetle Thu, 23 Feb 2012 01:07:20 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5755#comment-19300 I like your comparison between Ellie Arroway and Lorenzo Snow, not the least because both cosmologies are imaginative fictions! Unfortunately for whatever point you are trying to make, the example also highlights a quite significant difference: Arroway would not characterize the aliens as divine, while that is core aspect of your Lorenzo quote. I like your comparison between Ellie Arroway and Lorenzo Snow, not the least because both cosmologies are imaginative fictions! Unfortunately for whatever point you are trying to make, the example also highlights a quite significant difference: Arroway would not characterize the aliens as divine, while that is core aspect of your Lorenzo quote.

]]> Comment on More on Mormons, atheism and aliens by randal http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/more-on-mormons-atheism-and-aliens/#comment-19299 randal Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:59:10 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5755#comment-19299 Not by any conventional definition of metaphysical naturalism. How do you define it? Not by any conventional definition of metaphysical naturalism. How do you define it?

]]> Comment on More on Mormons, atheism and aliens by Ian http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/more-on-mormons-atheism-and-aliens/#comment-19298 Ian Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:53:22 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5755#comment-19298 So then your god fits within the framework of metaphysical naturalism? So then your god fits within the framework of metaphysical naturalism?

]]> Comment on Why Mormons are probably atheists by davidstarlingm http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/why-mormons-are-probably-atheists/#comment-19297 davidstarlingm Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:50:55 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5745#comment-19297 While we're at it -- rejection of theism, religion, and the supernatural sounds like atheistic humanistic naturalism. While we’re at it — rejection of theism, religion, and the supernatural sounds like atheistic humanistic naturalism.

]]> Comment on More on Mormons, atheism and aliens by randal http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/more-on-mormons-atheism-and-aliens/#comment-19296 randal Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:44:41 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5755#comment-19296 I didn't say I'm agnostic about "supernatural agents". I suggested that you do't konw enough about what a supernatural agent (or a poltergeist) is to make a judgment about whether a potergeist could be a god by your own definition. I use the term "supernatural" in popular parlance but I don't need it to define God. Look at the definition I originally provided. I didn’t say I’m agnostic about “supernatural agents”. I suggested that you do’t konw enough about what a supernatural agent (or a poltergeist) is to make a judgment about whether a potergeist could be a god by your own definition.

I use the term “supernatural” in popular parlance but I don’t need it to define God. Look at the definition I originally provided.

]]> Comment on More on Mormons, atheism and aliens by Ian http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/more-on-mormons-atheism-and-aliens/#comment-19295 Ian Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:40:53 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5755#comment-19295 We don't even need to go back to 1850. Look up "cargo cult." We don’t even need to go back to 1850. Look up “cargo cult.”

]]> Comment on More on Mormons, atheism and aliens by Ian http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/more-on-mormons-atheism-and-aliens/#comment-19294 Ian Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:37:50 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5755#comment-19294 Does this agnosticism regarding supernatural agents not have ramifications for your variety of theism? Does this agnosticism regarding supernatural agents not have ramifications for your variety of theism?

]]> Comment on Why Mormons are probably atheists by davidstarlingm http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/why-mormons-are-probably-atheists/#comment-19293 davidstarlingm Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:19:56 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5745#comment-19293 Rejecting theism? Okay, cool. We can define that pretty concisely. But religion and the supernatural? Those are both really complicated. Religion can't be defined without reference to the supernatural (otherwise football becomes a religion, at least here in Alabama). There isn't any good way to define "supernatural" in such a way that it includes the Mormon deities and excludes extraterrestrial intelligences. The only simple definition for atheism that I can see is the rejection of any beings that could impose moral obligations on humanity. Would you agree with that? Rejecting theism? Okay, cool. We can define that pretty concisely.

But religion and the supernatural? Those are both really complicated. Religion can’t be defined without reference to the supernatural (otherwise football becomes a religion, at least here in Alabama). There isn’t any good way to define “supernatural” in such a way that it includes the Mormon deities and excludes extraterrestrial intelligences.

The only simple definition for atheism that I can see is the rejection of any beings that could impose moral obligations on humanity. Would you agree with that?

]]> Comment on Why Mormons are probably atheists by davidstarlingm http://randalrauser.com/2012/02/why-mormons-are-probably-atheists/#comment-19292 davidstarlingm Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:16:08 +0000 http://randalrauser.com/?p=5745#comment-19292 Trivial but useful! :) Trivial but useful! :)

]]>