Check out Mark Shea’s new article: insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2546&Itemid=48
There’s also a book out there that leaves a smoking hole in the “prophets” of the New Atheism…
The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens
There’s an electronic that one can download on the author’s website as well. voxday.blogspot.com
That is a well-done article.
Having spent my life in fascination and study of the English language, I must confess I am at a loss for the definition of “pwnz0rd”.
Anyone want to help me out here?
While I am not scholar of the English language, I too am mystified by this collection of characters.
Scottgun, help us out! http://bestsmileys.com/transform/1.gif
Ain’t sure about z0rd, but “pwn” was originally a typo for “own,” as in, “I own you now!”. It rhymes with spoon, I’m pretty sure, and inflects as “pwn, pwning, pwnage (the act of pwning someone)”.
It’s an online gaming expression.
How very curious.
So it is spelled “pwn,” pronounced “poon,” translates to “own,” and means “defeat” or “dominate.” Could it be said that the Patriots got “pwned” on Sunday?
Yep. As a gamer myself I can attest to the fact that this word and plenty of its ilk can be found on gamer boards and online gaming environments like World of Warcraft.
On topic though, yeah it seems like an interesting article. I also downloaded the free ebook from TIA. Will read through it when I get the time.
Yes, I would say it’s entirely appropriate to say the Pats got “pwned”. Although, I’ve never in my life heard it pronounced “poon.” My friends and I always pronounce it “pown,” like own with a p added to the front.
[quote=The Article]The problem is this: Trying to derive a moral universe – any moral universe at all – of Should from a purely materialistic universe of Is turns out to be impossible.
Not entirely impossible. Actually, not impossible at all! You just have to make the "Ought"s contingent, part of an “If, then” statement. “If you want to be happy, you ought to follow our code of morality,” for example, is a perfectly logical statement, though its premise may be wrong (it’s something to argue about). If course, you have no real reason for wanting to be happy, but if you do, then morality may be for you.
What’s TIA, do you have a link?
TIA is The Irrational Atheist. It’s available as a free ebook download from irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html . Not a Catholic book I’m thinking, but a deconstruction of illogical atheist arguments against faith in general.
PinoyCathoic is correct.
The Irrational Atheist is not a Catholic book, or even a Christian book, per se (although the author, Vox Day is a Baptist Christian).
He shows the irrationality, illogical nature, & poor attention to those troublesome facts to demonstrate the nonsensical arguments of the “New Atheists”.
He avoids using religious arguments as they are always simply dismissed by the so-called “brights” as “superstitious nonsense”, & instead turns the new atheists own guns against them.
From the cover blurb:
"*Presenting a compelling argument, Day strips away the pseudo-scientific pretensions of New Atheism with his intelligent application of logic, history, military science, political economy and well-documented research. The arguments of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and MIchael Onfray are all methodically exposed and discredited as Day provides extensive evidence proving, among other things, that:
- More than 93 percent of all the wars in human history had no relation to religion
- The Spanish Inquisition had no jurisdiction over professing Jews, Muslims or atheists and executed fewer people on an annual basis than the state of Texas
- Atheists are 3.84 times more likely to be imprisoned than Christians
- “Red” state crime is primarily committed in “blue” counties
- Sexually abused girls are 55 times more likely to commit suicide than girls raised Catholic
- In the twentieth century, atheistic regimes killed three times more people in peacetime than those killed in all the wars and individual crimes combined.
The Irrational Atheist provides the rational thinker with empirical proof that atheism’s claims against religion are devoid of logic, fact and science."*
I didn’t see any pwnzoring being done there. I saw her post 2 great reasons why god doesn’t exist, and then I read about 6 paragraphs of her complaining about athiesm and making ridiculous statements with no support, but never did she actually provide a counterarguement for the disproofs of god. Maybe later in the article, but frankly, if you’re going to barf up “athiesm sucks athiesm sucks athiesm sucks because I say so athiesm sucks athiesm sucks” page after page eventually I’m just going to give up.
You’ve gotten some good explanations of the “pwn” part.
The “-z0rd” part is:
*]"-z" = designates an action: One “wack-z” = “I wackz you.”
*]"-0r" = designates that a SUPERIOR person has done the action: “I am WACKZOR, who is the master of wacking!”
*]"-d" = past tense
That’s because St. Thomas already did in the Summa (it’s written in the scholastic style, providing objections and then answering them). It’s easily available to anyone. It’s even online at NewAdvent.
ha yea. It baffles me how many people go through life writing **** books on atheism and don’t even bother to read Thomas Aquinas.
Does it seem like some of the arguments Shea points out in this article are the same ones anti-Catholics use against Catholics? For example, Shea paraphrases the athiest:
But any God worthy of the name would** submit to my demand** for experimental proof, not manifest Himself to such tacky people.
It seems God does not exist, because if he did exist he would meet my demand for proof by giving a biblical author knowledge – such as the soil composition of Mars or the design of a microchipThis mentality, which is quite true, I see among anti-Catholics. Take the Papacy for example….i.e. if it was true, God would meet my demand to spell it out better for me in Scripture, because I don’t accept Tradition.
Yea, Thomas Aquinas foreshadowed the arguments of relativism in the 13th century. And somehow atheism and relativism is considered “modern”.
Do you read the article? She definately made a stance that she was going to go ahead and disprove them, but then failed, fell flat on her face with nothing.
St. Thomas’s arguements are blown apart in a number of books on atheism, so…