Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't put words in my mouth, Maia. "It's not on the table for discussion" means that I am not going to reply. The only one who gets to determine what you discuss apart from yourself is the moderator.
You should say what you mean rather than telling me something "is not on the table for discussion". Whether you realize it or not, that implies that I cannot discuss it. Also, I don't need to be told the job of a moderator but thanks for letting me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires
See my response above about context. Moreover, the general objection of implying that the other group is unintelligent can be found on nearly every post on this thread from Atheists toward Theists. Yet you single MINE out? Give me a break.
Once again, you are being singled out for crying foul on the very behavior you engage in (and notably refuse to discuss).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires
As regards your comment: "
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires
I can see that you will continue to excuse yourself"
Applying your own standards articulated above, it is insulting to me in that you are implying that I don't have the integrity to take responsibility for my own actions. If you are going to criticize another individual for posting "insults," don't follow that criticism with an insult of your own. THAT is called "hypocrisy."
Only you can take it as an insult. Apparently you don't see or refuse to acknowledge the insults you've made in this thread and the tone of your posts. I've expressed my opinion of that just as you've expressed your opinion on atheists. I'm sorry you don't like my opinion but nothing you have said so far changes the way your prior posts read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires
Well, I'm a bit astounded that you have become so incensed over my statement about the Craig/Hitchens debate, yet for some unknown reason have completely ignored the extremely pejorative language directed throughout much of this thread at Theists. I'd compile a list to bring to your attention but I'm sure you've read them already yourself.
Yes, I've read the atheist insults and I've read your insults as well. I could compile both if you wish. I noted in my first post that atheists were also rude on this thread. The problem I have is you going into victim mode while ignoring your own behavior; and, later, dragging your fight with atheists into other threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires
This strongly suggests you are not offended by "incivility in general" but only incivility--or perceived incivility--when it is directed to Atheists and Agnostics by a Theist;
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires
THAT is called a "double standard."
I'm irritated when a person demands apologies and denounces the same behavior in which they engage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamingSpires
This has veered way off topic. If you want to discuss more, feel free to DM me.
If you have anything else to add, you may DM me as well. Otherwise, I will assume that we have both said all we have to say.
DreamingSpires....You are missing my point. I did not imply that you were, nor would I have the right to complain if you had. I was trying to explain that this forum, unlike DM's, is a public forum, where basic standards of civility should be upheld.
So when are you going to start? All I've gotten from you so far are insults. Respect is not a given, it must be earned, and you are failing miserably.
Actually that quote is a generic label for that type of suggestion - that atheists don't become or stay atheist because they just can't believe it (which is the almost universal reason put forward by those who have thought about it) but some suggestion that something bad happened in our lives or we had some bad experience with religion that turned us off.
Well, as to Aquinas, etc, I find it hard to imagine any who could have reasoned their way to God (especially Biblegod) without postulating it in the first place. Certainly Lane Craig was doing that and his argument didn't stand up for a second without the basic assumption of it being true.
Hitchen's response was on the right lines but it was certainly not delivered very well. I think I could have done a lot better myself and without attacking religion.
In rereading your post I see now that you didn't say your Christian colleague actually used that phrase; apologies for the misinterpretation, I should have read your post more carefully.
I am not a scholar of Aquinas, so I may be wrong in saying this, but my reading of Aquinas (and I admit, it's "limited") is that he proves that faith and reason are compatible, not that faith is necessary. The lectures I have listened to from Craig take a similar approach. The natural law points toward the existence of God, not the other way around. But I may be oversimplifying here. I may come back to this at a later time and try to clarify.
Hitchens's biggest problem in my opinion is his temperment--he comes across as very thin-skinned. He has always been whiney and over-emotional in his delivery, and it has nothing to do with Atheism. The first time I saw him debate was against I think it was Elliot Abrams during the "Iran-Contra" scandal, and all I could do was cringe at his prissy petulance. I had no idea at the time about his religious views or anything, all I knew was his byline from, I think, Rolling Stone (?) or it might have been Atlantic Monthly. Anyway, I think the Atheist cause would be much better served by someone far more dispassionate in their delivery.
Last edited by DreamingSpires; 08-22-2010 at 04:52 AM..
Reason: clarity
In rereading your post I see now that you didn't say your Christian colleague actually used that phrase; apologies for the misinterpretation, I should have read your post more carefully.
No problem. In fact I have a tendency to use generic titles for apologetics packages which can look as though I'm misrepresenting what someone else said. It's the way I write.
Quote:
I am not a scholar of Aquinas, so I may be wrong in saying this, but my reading of Aquinas (and I admit, it's "limited") is that he proves that faith and reason are compatible, not that faith is necessary. The lectures I have listened to from Craig take a similar approach. The natural law points toward the existence of God, not the other way around. But I may be oversimplifying here. I may come back to this at a later time and try to clarify.
Nor am I and I don't claim to be so expert in anything that I can't be corrected. Any point arising can be researched, including the Ontological argument of Anselm and Descartes or Aquinas' Cosmological/teleological argument.
In various ways they have been discussed and they both fail, especially these days since there are other explantions for why we have the idea of a big invisible human who made everything (which is the Ontological argument in a nutshell) or counters to the argument that 'something' (read someone) must have dunnit. However, that is addressing the counters to Craig's arguments, but is not too related to Hitchen's assurance that he will not do a deathbed conversion.
Quote:
Hitchens's biggest problem in my opinion is his temperment--he comes across as very thin-skinned. He has always been whiney and over-emotional in his delivery, and it has nothing to do with Atheism. The first time I saw him debate was against I think it was Elliot Abrams during the "Iran-Contra" scandal, and all I could do was cringe at his prissy petulance. I had no idea at the time about his religious views or anything, all I knew was his byline from, I think, Rolling Stone (?) or it might have been Atlantic Monthly. Anyway, I think the Atheist cause would be much better served by someone far more dispassionate in their delivery.
I am certainly not going to claim Hitchens as some sort of atheist saint. I watched a clip of Dawkins chatting to a theist about God - claims and I was unimpressed by the way he, instead of actually refuting what she was saying - which was not hard - had a go at her 'fundamentalism'. Which was just an ad hominem, which is fallacious argument, whether done by a theist or atheist.
At the same time, the important thing is the argument rather than the delivery style. I often must come across as aggressive and attacking, but I trust that there is always some point being made by me and I only get steamed when someone is not arguing according to the rules of logic and critical thinking or is trying to do irrelevant point - scoring.
I must sound like an obsessive about that, but, after all, theists and theist philosophers all purport to argue according to 'reason'. The problem is, as I said, one can reason soundly or unsoundly. Beginning from an unjustified premise is going to lead to an unjustified conclusion, even if the method used is completely logical and even if it turns out to actually be true. As I said to Thom R. the only way to find out that it's actually true is to have the result verified in some other correct way.
So, to get back to Lane Craig, Anselm and Aquinas, their arguments are not in accordance with logic.
(a) Being able to imagine something greater does NOT mean that it must exist, even setting aside what and, if a god, which one.
(b) That something must have set everything going (first cause argument) is persuasive but we can't say for sure whether or what, nor rule out the possibility that the local cosmos, at least, came about without a divine mind behind it. One can also ask where the divine mind came from. One can say it was always there, fully developed and all - knowing, but that is a Faith concept, an unjustified a priori, not a reasoned concept.
(c) And Craig's argument that Faith is better than atheism because it offers an afterlife belief and atheism doesn't is easily countered and rather effectively, too.
(1) there is no good evidence for an afterlife. It is better to make the most the life we have than waste it in expectation of another after we're dead.
(2) Jesus' resurrection does not prove an afterlife because:
(alpha) He is God and immortal - he can't die. We do, so why should we expect an afterlife, just because He got one?
(beta) the resurrection accounts are doubtful. It seems a bit gullible to place faith in such accounts and, indeed, in any afterlife assurances given in the gospels.
(3) In the case of the promise of a possible afterlife, we can't reasonably tell ourselves that Christian - belief will get us one. There are other gods who claim to have the concession for entry to the afterlife. Islam is the obvious rival. If we don't believe in Islam, if it turns out to be right, the 'unbelievers' can forget their afterlife.
Christians may say that they are sure Islam is a false faith and Christianity is true, so Jesus is the only valid afterlife option. That is a Faith claim, nor a reason claim, because sound reasoning (logic and evidence) will show that the Bible is so flawed a document that belief in its claims is based on Faith, not reason. Islam, is just as likely - or unlikely - to be true.
There are also rival Christianities, too. We cannot assume (though it is comforting to tell ourselves so) that belonging to the 'wrong' denomination won't disqualify us.
(4) Of course I must concede that lack of evidence for an afterlife doesn't mean that it isn't possible. Axiom - science doesn't know everything, and doesn't claim to.
But I will say that, if there is an afterlife, I firmly believe that it is not within the remit of any one god to give or withhold it. If there is an afterlife, we ALL get it as naturally as we get birth or death. That is something of a Faith claim, of course.
Therefore, if one wants a Faith that gives the most hope and comfort for a fair and just afterlife for all of us, it is the Atheist afterlife - view which is better than the 'I hope and trust that we're right' particular view of Christianity, Islam and all the other religions.
Love to hear your views on this.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-22-2010 at 06:35 AM..
The advantage Hitchens has, that less passionate atheists sometimes don't, is that he can be quite entertaining and even witty at times. Many atheists think they're funny when they're not, the type who find rather hack jokes about religion hilarious or try to be a second-rate version of George Carlin, but at his best Hitchens is maybe not trying to be funny yet still has a kind of cruel wit. (I think in "Free Inquiry" he stated that he feels "love your enemy" is a Christian value and that it's one he has no interest in applying in his life. I'd say it shows.) I think this is partly because Hitchens, unlike many of these professional atheists, is coming more from a journalistic/punditry background than a science background. He's used to making his stuff "punchy" and readable, not necessarily informative or educational. So his arguments are sometimes poorer than the others, at times he basically repeated some urban legends said of small religions, but more entertaining or at least more infuriating.
It's kind of a mixed bag, depends on what you want I guess. I've seen him eviscerate people in pretty eye-catching ways, I think much of his work is the intellectual equivalent of "smack-talk", and sometimes I've agreed with his targets. However sometimes he goes a bit off the beam even for his supporters, like when he sneeringly called Wanda Sykes "The Sable Sapphist." Nice alliteration I suppose, but racially unwise for a variety of reasons.
To make a long story short this is the Atheist/Agnostic board and what we think of him or atheism is maybe not relevant.
No problem. In fact I have a tendency to use generic titles for apologetics packages which can look as though I'm misrepresenting what someone else said. It's the way I write.
Nor am I and i don't claim to be so expert in anything that I can't be corrected. Any point arising can be researched, including the Ontological argument of Anselm and Descartes or Aquinas' Cosmological/teleological argument.
In various ways they have been discussed and they both fail, especially these days since there are other explantions for why we have the idea of a big invisible human who made everything (which is the Ontological argument in a nutshell) or counters to the argument that 'something' (read someone) must have dunnit. However, that is addressing the counters to Craig's arguments, but is not too related to Hitchen's assurance that he will not do a deathbed conversion.
I am certainly not going to claim Hitchens as some sort of atheist saint. I watched a clip of Dawkins chatting to a theist about God - claims and I was unimpressed by the way he, instead of actually refuting what she was saying - which was not hard - had a go at her 'fundamentalism'. Which was just an ad hominem, which is fallacious argument, whether done by a theist or atheist.
At the same time, the important thing is the argument rather than the delivery style. I often must come across as agressive and attacking, but I trust that there is always some point being made by me and I only get steamed when someone is not arguing according to the rules of logic and critical thinking or is trying to do irrelevant point -scoring.
I must sound like an obbsessive about that, but, after all, theists and theists philosophers all purport to argue according to 'reason'. The problem is, as I said, one can reason soundly or unsoundly. Beginning from an unjustified premise is going to lead to an unjustified conclusion, even if the method used is completely logical and even if it turns out to actually be true. As I said to Thom R. the only way to find out it's true is to have the result verified in some other correct way.
So, to get back to Lane Craig, Anselm and Aquinas, their arguments are not in accordance with logic.
(a) Being able to imagine something greater does NOT mean that it must exist, even setting aside what and, if a god, which one.
(b) That something must have set everything going (first cause argument) is persuasive but we can't say for sure whether or what, nor rule out the possibility that it the local cosmos, at least, came about without a divine mind behind it. One can also ask where the divine mind came from. One can say it was always there, fully developed and all - knowing, but that is a Faith concept, an unjustified a priori, not a reasoned concept.
(c) And Craig's argument that Faith is better than atheism because it offers an afterlife belief and atheism doesn't is easily countered and rather effectively, too.
(1) there is no good evidence for an afterlife. It is better to make the most the life we have that waste it in expectation of another after we're dead.
(2) Jesus' resurrection does not prove an afterlife because:
(alpha) He is God and immortal - he can't die. We do, so why should we expect an afterlife, just because He got one?
(beta) the resurrection accounts are doubtful. It seems a bit gullible to place faith in such accounts and, indeed, in any afterlife assurances given in the gospels.
(3) In the case of the promise of a possible afterlife, we can't reasonably tell ourselves that Christian - belief will get us one. There are other gods who claim to have the concession for entry to the afterlife. Islam is the obvious rival. If we don't believe in Islam, if it turns out to be right, the 'unbelievers' can forget their afterlife.
Christians may say that they are sure Islam is a false faith and Christianity is true, so Jesus is the only valid afterlife option. That is a Faith claim, nor a reason claim, because sound reasoning (logic and evidence) will show that the Bible is so flawed a document that belief in its claims is based on Faith, not reason.
There are also rival Christianities, too. We cannot assume (though it is comforting to tell ourselves so) that belonging to the 'wrong' denomination won't disqualify us.
(4) Of course I must concede that lack of evidence for an afterlife doesn't mean that it isn't possible. Axiom - science doesn't know everything, and doesn't claim to.
But I will say that, if there is and afterlife, I firmly believe that it is not within the remit of any one god to give or withhold it. If there is an afterlife, we ALL get it as naturally as we get birth or death. That is something of a Faith claim, of course.
Therefore, if one wants a Faith that gives the most hope and comfort for a fair and just afterlife for all of us, it is the Atheist afterlife - view which is better than the 'I hope and trust that we're right' particular view of Christianity, Islam and all the other religions.
Love to hear your views on this.
You raise a lot of interesting questions that are worthwhile exploring. To be honest, I would just be BS'ing if I tried to refute your arguments above off the top of my head. To not waste your time I would need to go back and do some research to see what I really think about them and why. One of my problems is that I have brain like a sieve, which retains nothing (which is why I could never hack it as a lecturer), and I have to go back into my notes to research most points in order to argue with any credibility.
As such, I am going to take a "rain check" on your proposal, and put these issues on the long finger for the moment. I'd certainly be interested in the meantime in hearing what my fellow Papist and intellectual superior, the scholarly Thomas thinks about these things.
Finally, I think his (Thomas's) point about Hitchens is very salient--the description "intellectual equivalent of smack talk" is right on the money. Hitchens is, above all, really an "entertainer," in contrast to Craig who is undeniably a scholar. Setting them up to debate is not really comparing "like with like."
Anyway, I hope to get back to your questions at a later point, I just don't know when.
To make a long story short this is the Atheist/Agnostic board and what we think of him or atheism is maybe not relevant.
Oh, I think it is. It is salutary for us to hear how the icons of atheism look to the believers. And I, for one, welcome people to the atheist board. It is a bit embarrassing that the turnover here is a bit slow and we have to infest the religion/philosophy board in order to do our polemics. Here we are just preaching to ourselves.
Hitchens's biggest problem in my opinion is his temperment--he comes across as very thin-skinned. He has always been whiney and over-emotional in his delivery, and it has nothing to do with Atheism.
Example? In bold, are you asserting the latter with the former?
Quote:
The first time I saw him debate was against I think it was Elliot Abrams during the "Iran-Contra" scandal, and all I could do was cringe at his prissy petulance. I had no idea at the time about his religious views or anything, all I knew was his byline from, I think, Rolling Stone (?) or it might have been Atlantic Monthly.
In bold, what is it are you trying to assert with what you felt?
Quote:
Anyway, I think the Atheist cause would be much better served by someone far more dispassionate in their delivery.
Atheist cause? What "cause" are you talking about? Are you an atheist?
If such a "cause" exists for atheists, what would the latter (in bold) have to do with "the cause"?
You raise a lot of interesting questions that are worthwhile exploring. To be honest, I would just be BS'ing if I tried to refute your arguments above off the top of my head. To not waste your time I would need to go back and do some research to see what I really think about them and why. One of my problems is that I have brain like a sieve, which retains nothing (which is why I could never hack it as a lecturer), and I have to go back into my notes to research most points in order to argue with any credibility.
As such, I am going to take a "rain check" on your proposal, and put these issues on the long finger for the moment. I'd certainly be interested in the meantime in hearing what my fellow Papist and intellectual superior, the scholarly Thomas thinks about these things.
Finally, I think his (Thomas's) point about Hitchens is very salient--the description "intellectual equivalent of smack talk" is right on the money. Hitchens is, above all, really an "entertainer," in contrast to Craig who is undeniably a scholar. Setting them up to debate is not really comparing "like with like."
Anyway, I hope to get back to your questions at a later point, I just don't know when.
Fine. Take your time. I'm not intending to check on a possible afterlife anytime soon. In fact since this is distinctly looking off -topic, it may be worth a new thread. And why not here? And I should love Thom. R. 's input. I am sure I have put these points before and it would be nice to have a response.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
