<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>

  
<title>Beyond Common Sense - The Bigger Arrogant</title>
<link>http://beyondcommonsense.com:80/2007/04/04/1175751000000.html</link>
<description>Almost every conversation I&amp;rsquo;ve had with a religious person leads to the accusation that how could I be so arrogant, so boastful and limited in my imagination as to dismiss the existence of God. In fact, this accusation is so common that even Richard ...</description>
<language>en</language>
<managingEditor>Ephraim Tekle</managingEditor>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:11:19 GMT</lastBuildDate>
  
  

  <generator>Pebble (http://pebble.sourceforge.net)</generator>
  <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
  
  
  <item>
    <title>Re: The Bigger Arrogant</title>
    <link>http://beyondcommonsense.com:80/2007/04/04/1175751000000.html#comment1182186679338</link>
    <description>
      Hi Ephraim,&lt;br /&gt;
...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; And also, I just wanted to ask you a question about your post on the arrogance of religious people. As far as I can tell your accusations of religious people being arrogant seems to be based on some moral ground in the sense that religious people are blameworthy for not dismissing belief in God. I wonder on what basis you hold such people morally culpable for what they believe since your commitment to naturalism seems to deprive you of an objective, transcendent source of morality, which, if you&amp;rsquo;re aware of, is an Achilles&amp;rsquo; heel for naturalism. Unless you&amp;rsquo;ve a new moral theory for your brand of naturalism/atheism, I&amp;rsquo;m extremely skeptical of the availability of objective moral anchor for naturalism that is superior to that of theism. If your moral theory, given naturalism/materialism, is incoherent or indefensible, I wonder how you&amp;rsquo;d maintain your accusation of theists being arrogant, which seems to be a moral failure on their part. I hope that you&amp;rsquo;re aware of the normative dimension of an ought statement with moral implications such as the one you used in your post I&amp;rsquo;m referring to and I really want to know how on earth normative, prescriptive statements could be accounted for given naturalism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...&lt;br /&gt;
Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Alethia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[Posted on behalf of Alethia by Ephraim Tekle. For the original post by Alethia click &lt;a href=&#034;http://www.beyondcommonsense.com/2007/06/16/1182026640000.html&#034;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;]
    </description>
    <author>Alethia </author>
    <comments>http://beyondcommonsense.com:80/2007/04/04/1175751000000.html#comments</comments>
    <guid isPermaLink="true">http://beyondcommonsense.com:80/2007/04/04/1175751000000.html#comment1182186679338</guid>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:11:19 GMT</pubDate>
  </item>
  
  </channel>
</rss>
