Comments on: The Meaning of Insidious, or a Dog with a Bone http://sadredearth.com travels in Indian Country and other terrains Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:06:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: sshender http://sadredearth.com/israel/the-meaning-of-insidious-or-a-dog-with-a-bone/comment-page-1/#comment-772 sshender Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:41:44 +0000 http://sadredearth.com/?page_id=1527#comment-772 I'm just sorry I've discovered it only now - have a lot of catching up to do! I read some of your other posts regarding Israel (which, incidentally, happens to be my main interest) and found your analysis of AI the best so far. I've scoured the net for thoughtful analysis of the modern left, but unfortunately, all too often all you get from the Zionist blogosphere is mostly verdicts of antisemitism instead of incisive examination. So many yell about the bias of HRW, and yet so few offer sound explanations why things are the way they are. I’m just sorry I’ve discovered it only now – have a lot of catching up to do! I read some of your other posts regarding Israel (which, incidentally, happens to be my main interest) and found your analysis of AI the best so far. I’ve scoured the net for thoughtful analysis of the modern left, but unfortunately, all too often all you get from the Zionist blogosphere is mostly verdicts of antisemitism instead of incisive examination. So many yell about the bias of HRW, and yet so few offer sound explanations why things are the way they are.

]]> By: A. Jay Adler http://sadredearth.com/israel/the-meaning-of-insidious-or-a-dog-with-a-bone/comment-page-1/#comment-761 A. Jay Adler Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:31:20 +0000 http://sadredearth.com/?page_id=1527#comment-761 I quite agree with you, about the atheism, too, so much of which is very slightly considered and reflexive. Regarding the Harris-Sullivan debate, Harris incisively exposed a very poor set of arguments. Sullivan was soundly defeated. Otherwise, glad to you have you aboard. I quite agree with you, about the atheism, too, so much of which is very slightly considered and reflexive.

Regarding the Harris-Sullivan debate, Harris incisively exposed a very poor set of arguments. Sullivan was soundly defeated.

Otherwise, glad to you have you aboard.

]]> By: sshender http://sadredearth.com/israel/the-meaning-of-insidious-or-a-dog-with-a-bone/comment-page-1/#comment-760 sshender Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:21:21 +0000 http://sadredearth.com/?page_id=1527#comment-760 A decent guy, but not immune from error. I think him being a proud Roman Catholic has much to do with this - a man who believes in the nonsensical dictums of the Vatican can't be a serious thinker. He might get it right occasionally - as most of us do - but don't expect intellectual consistency. I've just finished reading his exchange with Sam Harris and lost whatever little respect I had for the guy. Sam Harris is SO right in pointing out that when you are raised believing that blind faith is a virtue and your reasoning faculties are a test of that faith, then you are prone to believing anything, however proposterous. Unfortunately, many self-proclaimed atheists score even worse, but these are usually "bundle-atheists" whose atheism is not the result of a philosophical journey, but part of a political ideology that is just hostile to religion while having the same attributes, such as communism. BTW, just discovered this blog through Augean Stables (which is my favourite blog on the net), and I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of the analysis and intellectual rigour. Bravo Count me in! A decent guy, but not immune from error. I think him being a proud Roman Catholic has much to do with this – a man who believes in the nonsensical dictums of the Vatican can’t be a serious thinker. He might get it right occasionally – as most of us do – but don’t expect intellectual consistency.

I’ve just finished reading his exchange with Sam Harris and lost whatever little respect I had for the guy. Sam Harris is SO right in pointing out that when you are raised believing that blind faith is a virtue and your reasoning faculties are a test of that faith, then you are prone to believing anything, however proposterous.

Unfortunately, many self-proclaimed atheists score even worse, but these are usually “bundle-atheists” whose atheism is not the result of a philosophical journey, but part of a political ideology that is just hostile to religion while having the same attributes, such as communism.

BTW, just discovered this blog through Augean Stables (which is my favourite blog on the net), and I must say I was pleasantly surprised by the depth of the analysis and intellectual rigour. Bravo
Count me in!

]]>