Atheism demotivators
Who doesn’t like demotivators? And really, who couldn’t like demotivators that poke fun at e.g. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and/or Christopher Hitchens.
Because let’s be honest: Dawkins is basically an arse, and his whole approach to preaching the message of his atheism is to attempt to demean everyone who disagrees with him about God.
(hat tip)
Dennett is an interesting fellow, but in the end winds up contradicting himself by arguing for having what amounts to faith in science as a whole, but against the notion that said faith should be held to the same standards as should Religion be.
Dennett is also a classic example of how even atheism is not a question of “shall we believe?” but, instead, “in what shall we believe?” And while he dismisses belief in God as illogical, he somehow thinks it logical to believe that the three pound piece of meat situated a few inches behind its eyes, with all of its random chemical interactions and unpredictable hormonal surges, is capable of reason purely on its own merits.
(hat tip)
Christopher Hitchens is many things: sober and sane are not two of these. And if you ever need an example of emotion-driven atheism masquerading as hard, cold logic, Hitchens is your best example.
Update: But wait, there’s more!
Sam Harris is an interesting study in the correlation between atheism-cum-political ideology and violence. He’s on record as saying that he has no problem with torture if it is done in the best interests of the state, and he’s also on record stating that those who cannot be convinced to abandon certain beliefs — those the state deems nonconstructive to its goals, basically — should be killed off.
And yet, if you try and point out that atheists in recent history (the 19th and 20th centuries, basically) have a pretty good track record when it comes to doing both of those things, he kind of gets all defensive. It’s weird.
(hat tip)
Atheists and Gnostics are right in most of their thinking
It has been common among religious believers to look with misgiving to atheists and Gnostics, and to think that they are mistaken; however, in many instances the opposite is the truth; some religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. The “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence itself, “All-That-Is.” If something is there, that is God. Look at the book “Christianity Reformed From ist Roots – A life centered in God” (Amazon.com). I am confident that some of your friends will be relieved of the illusion, as I did myself.
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
I’d almost be willing to grant that point as a general rule, inasmuch as it pertains to purely secular matters. Of course, in saying as much, I’m basically just agreeing that the average non-believer or doubter is about as correct in his everyday thinking as is…the average Joe on the street.
Inasmuch, though, as the statement above applies to atheist/gnostic thought concerning religion, the nature of God, and related matters, I’m afraid I can’t help but disagree. With few exceptions, the atheistic position lacks grounding in reason, while the Gnostic position often seems akin to a conspiracy theory.
Well, they are mistaken. I don’t know if the average believer takes an attitude of “misgiving” toward atheists and Gnostics (are you sure you don’t mean agnostics?)…an attitude of bemusement, yes (at times), and an attitude of pity most certainly. Those who’ve an eye for Scripture might also regard atheists and the like as being foolish (c.f. Wisdom 2).
But “misgiving?” Not so much.
I’ll grant that point; there’s any number of pantheist and panentheist traditions which are simply ludicrous, if you actually think about what they profess.
But the fact that some religions are baseless is not at all the same thing evidence that all religions are baseless. It’s important to note this, because you make exactly this logical mis-step right…about…now:
It would be interesting to hear from whence your certainty in saying as much stems from, especially in light of the numerous arguments, ontological and otherwise, that offer compelling testimony for the existence of God.
In a sense, the great theologians — Thomas Aquinas et. al. — wouldn’t disagree with you; if in fact something exists which is extrinsic to creation, or extrinsic to the Universe, or extrinsic to that which is the domain of the physical laws of nature, and if this something relates to creation/the Universe/the physical domain in a manner that is causitive, then that thing is indeed God.
But of course, that’s not the end of the inquiry, is it? Simply knowing a thing exists still tells us nothing about the thing, and so we must again turn to reason and an analysis of the natural law (we cannot turn to empiricism, after all) in an attempt to glean or ferret out the properties of that which now stands revealed as God.
And what do we find when we inquire as to these properties of this God? Funnily, we find that this world seems to have been fabricated to work in certain particular ways, and that the Universe is ordered in certain particular ways. And in looking at those ways, we begin to see glimpses (c.f. Psalm 19) of just what the character of this God we’ve found actually is.
And whaddya know? He kind of looks exactly like God — the God of the Bible — does.
My tastes run a little more in the direction of Lewis, Chesterton, and (lately) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, admittedly.
I’m sorry to hear that you lost your faith. Granted, if I were an Episcopalian, I’d probably leave that church as well…though not for the mire of muddy, quasi-non-belief.
I guess ad hominems will have to do when your primary argument for god’s existence is “this book says so”.
I almost feel bad for Christians.
There, there…no need to feel bad.
Several points could be raised here.
1) The first demotivator uses ad hominem, but the use of ad hominem is not automatically a fallacy; in certain cases, it is actually a legitimate form of argument. In the case of Dick Dawkins, we are speaking of a man who claims to have comprehensively refuted the entirety of the Summa Theologica in…what? Two pages? Three? Such a man is not a man of reason, but one of deep delusions (especially about his own intellectual prowess and rhetorical skill). As such, there is no reasoning with the man, despite his profession of being a devout disciple of that particular intellectual discipline.
Fortunately, Dawkins himself gives us the answer to the question of by what means we might get a point across to such a man as him: Dawkins himself is absurdly vitriolic when he wants to be, and is given to saying some rather shocking things about religion (such as his suggestion that being brought up in a religious home is somehow more psychologically damaging to children than is sexual abuse).
That and let’s face it: in an objective sense, Dawkins is an asshole, a petty bully with a constant scowl. Hitchens is worse.
2) The second demotivator is not ad hominem at all; it’s a basic distillation of Dennett’s argument. That the argument itself is absurd is entirely Dennett’s own fault.
3) Though the third demotivator uses ad hominem to a certain degree, is it really an ad hominem fallacy to call a raving drunk a raving drunk?
4) Your own comment demonstrates a subcurrent that runs through all the demotivators on offer, and a subtextual element that seems to run through most examples of pop internet atheism. I’m speaking, of course, of a deep lack of humour or the ability to perceive same.
At the end of the day, these demotivators have a certain rationale behind them, but are not exactly profound arguments in favour of the theistic position; they’re simply poking a bit of fun at a group of people who, frankly, are given to saying some really silly things on a fairly regular basis.
5) There’s more to offer than mere ad hominem and fun-poking, but at the end of the day it’s nice to keep these sorts of things ready for use for no other reason that most internet atheists aren’t exactly persons of reason, and so are not typically given to hearing out more comprehensive apologetic arguments.
Interestingly, you illustrate this last point when you conclude your remark thusly:
If you’re honestly so deluded by your own secularism that you think that a simple textual assertion of God’s existence is the sole reason, or even the primary reason, any intelligent Christian professes his or her faith, you’re not a person of reason. Sorry to put it so bluntly.
“Dick Dawkins, we are speaking of a man who claims to have comprehensively refuted the entirety of the Summa Theologica in…what? Two pages?”
Is this the part where we pretend there is more to it than “I have faith that a magic man did it all, and this particular magic man is much more believable than all the ones that came before him”? Two pages was probably one and a half too many. Why should anyone believe in something that extraordinairy and horrible without a shred of proof?
“That and let’s face it: in an objective sense, Dawkins is an asshole, a petty bully with a constant scowl. Hitchens is worse.”
And I love that about them. Of course, the fact that Christians are so easy to get a rise out of just makes it more fun to watch them debate clueless preachers (who, funnily enough, disregard the fact and theory of evolution without any knowledge of the issue (kind of like you accuse Dawkins of doing)).
“is it really an ad hominem fallacy to call a raving drunk a raving drunk?”
He calls himself that, but you’ve got to see that the whole point of my comment was the complete dearth of evidence in favor of the fables you (I assume) hold as true. So not only is it pretty unimaginative to point out the pretty obvious fact that he likes to drink, it’s also too bad that you have to be so judgmental about it (‘judge not’ and all that).
I’m sorry, but it’s just so uninspired.
“I’m speaking, of course, of a deep lack of humour or the ability to perceive same.”
It’s true, I admit to not finding everything on the Internet funny. Although that doesn’t necessarily make me completely devoid of a sense of humor, you’re welcome to believe so. Perhaps that will change when you have actually read more than two lines of my writing. But if it won’t, I think we can conclude that we might not find the same things humorous (blasphemy chief among them).
“they’re simply poking a bit of fun at a group of people who, frankly, are given to saying some really silly things on a fairly regular basis.”
And I’m sure you have posted similar demotivators of the less clever folk on your side. In fact, I bet you have a whole bunch of them quoting the bible.
But I’m being a bit unfair. I would understand if you hadn’t. I’m sure this is more about a lack of religion than any perceived silliness.
After all, we hold intellectuals to a higher standard than simple preachers and people that start up “museums” that show humans riding around on dinosaurs.
“There’s more to offer than mere ad hominem and fun-poking, but at the end of the day it’s nice to keep these sorts of things ready for use for no other reason that most internet atheists aren’t exactly persons of reason, and so are not typically given to hearing out more comprehensive apologetic arguments.”
It’s funny, neither are people of other religions. It seems like your apologetics only work if the person you are preaching for is already part of your particular religion.
Just like evolution. Oh wait.
You have to understand that apologetics have two modes:
#1: really bible-specific arguments that assume the bible is true from the get-go.
#2: vaguer arguments that could apply to any god.
And more often than not, both of these ignore science.
But feel free to hit me with your best apologetic argument if that makes you feel better. I’m sure it’s a brilliant one.
“If you’re honestly so deluded by your own secularism that you think that a simple textual assertion of God’s existence is the sole reason,”
Well, you have to sacrifice some detail when you want to make a snappy two-liner.
I’m aware of other things that you might count as good arguments for the existence of the Chrisitan god, but then when you poke at that argument, you will soon hear a reference to the bible. For if you didn’t reference to your bible, it would just be *a* god. But feel free to prove me wrong on this particular point, I am all ears.
Perhaps you have a miracle you want to tell me about? That always works.
“Sorry to put it so bluntly.”
No sweat. Be as blunt as you want, I’m used to it. I’m almost surprised that you haven’t told me I’m going to hell already!
Would you prefer that it was? It would be easier for you were it so.
Says the man(?) who has probably never read or comprehended any of even the five most famous Aquinian arguments.
What is “proof?”
That’s what a lot of this comes down to — what do you define “proof” to be when you demand it? What would you accept as “proof?” Are you certain that only the things you would accept as “proof” are valid proofs? How can you be certain that there are not valid proofs which you, personally, are unwilling to accept despite their veracity? Can you prove (heh) that the only valid proofs are the ones you are personally willing to accept?
So I say again: what is “proof?” If you’ve come to parrot Sagan and claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” you’re an idiot (sorry to say); extraordinary claims can be (and, in history, often have been) proven by rather unextraordinary evidence. If you’ve come to demand empirical proof of God’s existence, you’re a positivist, and thus beholden to a flawed and self-contradictory worldview. If you’ve come to demand other proof — proof that does not ultimately reduce to one of these two categories, that is — speak your demand now and inform me of its existence, because as yet I’ve encountered no requests for proof of a kind other than the two easily-dismissed categories previously enumerated.
Which brings up another point that one must sadly note about pop internet atheists: most of them seem to be socially autistic, tactless fools who delight in belittling others and trumping up their own egos. And that’s fine if that’s all you want to do…but it does not exactly prove that the atheist conjecture is the correct one that most of its proponents do that much and nothing else. It simply establishes that atheism is a metaphysical conjecture and philosophical system that appeals primarily to tactless assholes.
I find it interesting that neither Dawkins nor Hitchens possesses sufficient courage, integrity, or conviction to debate opponents who are not, as you so eloquently put it, “clueless preachers.” Both men will bravely march out to debate easily refuted nitwits who preach false teachings like Calvinism and Young Earth Creationism, but will run like hell from opponents who present more cogent defences of the Christian faith. Or, in the case of Hitchens, will simply resort to cursing at their debate opponent.
There’s also a curious inconsistency in your reasoning, I’ll note. You were ready to dismiss everything said above (in the main article) on the grounds that it was mere ad hominem. That’s fine…but an intellectually honest and consistent person would not then turn around and claim that he loves to watch the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens employ the same rhetorical device/logical fallacy (depending on its use) when debating smarter opponents.
If in the end, what is the point of a debate? To get a rise out of an opponent? That doesn’t seem particularly rational.
Which brings us back to the proof question: what is “evidence?” There’s quite a lot of evidence in favour of Christianity, including historical eyewitness accounts to the life and miracles of Christ.
But you see, there’s two parts to evidence: presentation and acceptance. You and I can expend countless amounts of time, breath, and words establishing the case for evolution to Young Earthers…but unless they accept the evidence we present as valid, they won’t come to accept evolutionary theory as valid. We can present arguments and evidences for the age of the Earth, present supporting arguments for the veracity of established dating methodologies, and still not see the other side come ’round to our viewpoint, because said other side simply doesn’t accept that e.g. carbon dating is an accurate or valid means of dating materials.
So too my presentation of the case for Christianity to you. I can present all manner of historical accounts by witnesses to the life and miracles of Christ, present accounts of various verifiable miracles, and present the vast sums of causal and first principle arguments that have been produced by the wisest of the wise throughout history…but unless you’re willing to accept these as evidence, you will of course not be convinced, and will furthermore be able to continue to pretend as though there is nothing more than mere “fables” to support the Christian conjecture.
The question that must first be settled, then, is one I’ve already posed: can you be sure that the limited scope of what you will accept as valid evidence is, in fact, correct, and that no valid forms of evidence exist outside what you personally are willing to accept as valid evidence? If so, how do you propose to prove that only the evidence you are willing to accept is valid, and that all forms of evidence you are not willing to accept are invalid? Moreover, how do you propose to prove that you are not simply trapped in a hermetically sealed worldview — not unlike that of a Young Earther — which objective facts and rational arguments cannot penetrate no matter how true and valid they may be?
There’s nothing wrong with being judgemental, if one exercises right judgement. The passage of Scripture you’re mutilating there (Matthew 7:1) reads as follows when properly cited (a proper citation including a few of the verses that follow):
[1]“Judge not, that you be not judged.
[2] For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
[3] Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
[4] Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?
[5] You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye
And fine, you don’t accept Scripture as a valid authority. But in your assumption that I do (a correct one, to be sure), you nevertheless err in attempting to hold me to its teachings. For as you can see, Holy Writ teaches that I should exercise judgement in like manner to how I would wish to be judged. And if I am man enough to admit that I’d want someone to tell me I have a drinking problem in the extreme, I can in good conscience make a similar observation about Hitchens.
That I opt to do so using some rhetorical flourish and some harsher terms for the purposes of catharsis is not a matter about which the Scripture you attempted to cite is concerned.
Of course the joke is uninspired! It’s a joke about atheism and atheists, after all — considering the source, it’s amazing there’s a joke there at all.
Let me hazard a guess: you don’t grasp LOLcats, but find Zombie Jesus jokes hilarious?
One works with the evidence one is provided with.
I should also note that I take a very Jewish view of jokes about worldviews and philosophies; if you can’t laugh at obtuse restatements of your own beliefs, you don’t take your beliefs seriously enough. That goes for Christians as much as Jews, and for atheists as much as Christians. Can’t take a joke about atheism? You’re a poor excuse for an atheist, then.
Well, we’re quite a bit further on in, and I remain unconvinced. You haven’t even tried to crack a joke that I can see.
Zombie Jesus, natch.
There’s a certain social misfitism inherent in someone whose principal sources of humour involve spitting and shitting upon the beliefs of others, even beliefs he does not share. Such a person is usually the first to complain, as you have done, when others decide to poke his own idols with the barb of humour.
For reference, that practice is called “hypocrisy” in polite society. And it would now seem apparent that you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and a fairly socially autistic one at that.
Given that I didn’t make these demotivators, but in fact have simply re-posted them, I suppose I should have to answer “no,” to your question…but only because, as yet, I’ve not tripped over demotivators concerning Young Earth Creationism or Calvinism. I did just post a funny little YouTube video poking fun at Calvinist theology, however, and you’ll find more than a few examples of snark directed at such positions as these within my blog’s archive.
Not that I expect you’ve bothered to investigate the matter; to do so would take a degree of intellectual honesty and non-laziness that many pop internet atheist social autists seem to lack.
Having not tripped over any, I can honestly say no. But as is the case with Young Earther demotivators, I’d be willing to post ones I did trip over if they were worth a chuckle.
Actually, it’s mostly about the silliness. I mean, c’mon; if you get to have your blasphemy humour, I don’t see how you can complain if I have a bit of fun poking fun at Dick Dawkins.
If only that were true!
As it is, however, pop internet atheists tend to do the opposite; people who start such “museums” are held to a fairly high standard (a well-deserved one, admittedly) of criticism, and comprehensive rebuttals to their absurd statements are routinely issued. But when the likes of Dick Dawkins publishes an obviously polemical book, his statements are uncritically accepted, or pass by with only the barest amount of scrutiny and criticism; they are instead simply lapped up by his faithful flock no matter how absurd they might be.
And when Dawkins or his ilk are criticized, said same faithful quickly cirle the wagons and rail against the criticism of an intellectual or a professor with distinguished credentials and tenure.
Me? I try and hold everyone to an essentially equal standard. If you’re teaching an idiocy, I don’t care so much whether it’s an atheistic idiocy or a theistic idiocy; I care that it’s an idiocy, and will respond to it on those grounds.
Oh please…is tu quoque all you’ve got?
Not that you’re wrong; pretty much every human being has a measure of unreason about him, and a measure of irrationality along with it. You most certainly do, as do I — it’s a part of being human, in fact, and then an enriching part.
That’s often how it works out, admittedly, but it’s not the intend behind it. That said, apologetics of any sort is necessarily based on the assumption that people can and will work to free themselves from arriving at an a priori conclusion, that people will humbly submit to a thirst for wisdom and allow that following a course of rational inquiry may require them to affirm their views, or may require them to change their views.
The vast majority of people cannot be sufficiently humble so as to do this. But apologetics soldiers on all the same.
Please tell me you aren’t mistaking me for an anti-evolutionist?
Perhaps in your experience, this is all there is. I cannot say I have shared the experience, if that is so; apologetics is somewhat broader than simply a pair of approaches.
It is true, however, that most atheistic apologetic arguments reduce to one of two basic claims: “bad things happen to good people,” and “things seem to get on fine without God.” Indeed, these are the only two good arguments for atheism…and they aren’t even arguments!
But in the end, it’s your last statement that’s the most telling — the appeal to science as (I assume) the highest truth. That, in and of itself, is a fairly bold claim, and then a fundamentally irrational and self-contradictory one. That’s not to say that science isn’t a valid avenue of rational inquiry, nor is to say that science cannot or does not lead us to a vast number of truths concerning the order and operation of the natural world and the Universe. But it is to say that science is the sole arbiter of what is true or not; there exist things which are true which fall outside the ability of empirical inquiry to detect and quantify.
You’re welcome to cruise the archives and find examples of various arguments I’ve made; I’ve already invested a fair bit of time in writing this much, and have reports to file before heading home for the evening which need some additional work done on them.
That said, the real issue is not what sort of apologetic argument I could provide; the issue is whether you are a sufficiently honest, rational, humble and open person as to be able to follow a line of inquiry where it will lead, even if it leads you to change your mind.
True and not; the Dennett poster is an amazingly accurate one-line summary (by way of turnabout) of Dennett’s principal argument against theistic epistemology. In the end, there’s a stark distinction between sacrificing detail and sacrificing the point. You opted for the latter.
This is often (though not always) true. But now we must ask another question: by what reasoning is the Bible automatically discarded as a valid resource? I’ve never actually heard a valid argument for why it must be the case that the Bible is never cited in an apologetic argument, or why the Bible is not a valid resource.
Though I look forward to hearing your reasons, which I am sure will be both objective and rational (or…something…).
In most cases, yes, though not in all.
Actually, I’d prefer to start by establishing all the necessary parameters first, before getting into detailed arguments. And we’ve still got a few gaping holes we need to fill in where your epistemology is concerned.
I could list a dozen off the top of my head…but you’ve already admitted that such evidence would not work you. And that’s fine; if you don’t accept that particular sort of evidence, it’s no skin off of my nose. Doubtless, you even think yourself rational for taking such a position.
But there’s a gulf of difference between thinking one is rational and actually being rational. And at the end of the day, disregarding as evidence something which was…say…witnessed by over 70,000 witnesses, not all of whom were persons of faith, and attempting to dismiss the entire affair as a mass hallucination of uncertain cause, is not a particularly rational thing to do. Evidence is evidence, whether we find it comfortable to accept or not. If we are honest men, we will accept it no matter what; if we are dishonest posers, we will approach it with our conclusion already in mind.
How many times, I wonder, have you genuinely put your atheism on the line? I’ve put my faith on the line more times than I care to count, in argument after argument. This time will be no different, for me at least. But you…are you man enough, honest enough, and humble enough to risk having to change your mind at the outcome of the discussion?
What am I, a Protestant?
Please…
If I might make one suggestion, it would be that you continue this discussion only after you’ve thrown away your playbook. You seem to have debated only certain kinds of Christians before, and then kinds of Christians I simply cannot be lumped in with. Unlike…say…a Calvinist, I both will not and cannot tell a person what his eternal fate will be, because it is not mine to make that judgement. The most I could do is point out that salvation is contingent upon faith in Christ and fruitful participation in the grace of God…and that God will judge with righteousness. But can I say what God’s judgement upon any particular person would be?
Nope.
Here’s me in a nutshell: I’m an orthodox Catholic baptized in the Eastern (Ukrainian) Rite of the Church, but currently practicing my faith in the Western (Latin) Rite. I’m an evolutionary creationist — I fully accept the validity of the theory of evolution, and believe that evolution is an ordained, sustained, design-reflecting process which proceeds and continues in and through the love of God. I’m a committed husband (I hope!), a good father (I hope), a fine provider for the needs of my family (I hope), and an unrepentant fan of the Ultima series of games. And when I have time, I do a bit of Catholic apologetics on the side, and a bit of evolutionary creationist apologetics as well.
Who are you?
“Would you prefer that it was? It would be easier for you were it so.”
If it could be proven, it would be called science. You can’t prove your particular god is any realer
than any other god out there, which makes them all roughly the same amount of probable, and since we
know that people can just make religions up (like Ron Hubbard), it’s very likely that yours was too.
“Says the man(?) who has probably never read or comprehended any of even the five most famous
Aquinian arguments.”
If you feel like it, we could discuss them. List them since you brought them up.
“What is “proof?””
To make it easy, let’s go with something between what would hold up in a court of law and a science
lab. It’s astounding how many Christians don’t even understand this basic concept.
“extraordinary claims can be (and, in history, often have been) proven by rather unextraordinary
evidence”
I suppose that is true in some cases. But how about some mediocre evidence then?
“Which brings up another point that one must sadly note about pop internet atheists: most of them
seem to be socially autistic, tactless fools who delight in belittling others and trumping up their
own egos”
This would be pretty ironic if you had ever claimed to be any better. I might even be guilty of the
things you mentioned, but I’ll live.
“but it does not exactly prove that the atheist conjecture is the correct one”
Whoever argued for that?
“it simply establishes that atheism is a metaphysical conjecture and philosophical system that
appeals primarily to tactless assholes.”
Atheism is the position of not being a theist and under that banner you can fit pretty much all
kinds of personalities and philosophies, but it’s pretty much the only thing that makes us a group.
“I find it interesting that neither Dawkins nor Hitchens possesses sufficient courage, integrity, or
conviction to debate opponents who are not, as you so eloquently put it, “clueless preachers.””
First of all, I must admit that I know of few (if any) great Christians thinkers (that has thunk
about Christianity in particular), so I guess I will have to take your word for it (although I know
that Dawkins has debated Christian scientists). Secondly, the smart Christians tend to be the ones
that accept evolution as the fact it is which makes the debates against Dawkins less interesting
(it’s not a good debate if both people agree all the time).
So who would you like to see debate Hitchens and Dawkins, and what is their best argument?
“but will run like hell from opponents who present more cogent defences of the Christian faith.”
They do? Please link and example of this happening.
“I’ll note. You were ready to dismiss everything said above (in the main article) on the grounds
that it was mere ad hominem”
To be honest I didn’t read the article. I just looked at the pretty pictures. Was it any good?
“That’s fine…but an intellectually honest and consistent person would not then turn around and claim
that he loves to watch the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens employ the same rhetorical device/logical
fallacy (depending on its use) when debating smarter opponents”
This is obviously more Hitchen’s forte than Dawkins’. It always spices up a debate when things get a
bit more personal. And if they use an ad hominem they pair it up with an actual argument. I tell
you, sometimes I wish I had Dawkins’ patience with dumb-as-bricks Christians who don’t know
evolution from the big bang.
“If in the end, what is the point of a debate? To get a rise out of an opponent? That doesn’t seem
particularly rational.”
As I see it, the point of a debate is to change the minds of the audience, not the opponent.
Hopefully they will notice when someone can’t defend their position. If you get to the audience’s
feelings it might get more publicity and help spread the issue and change more minds in the process.
Just don’t ask me how to change a mind.
“There’s quite a lot of evidence in favour of Christianity, including historical eyewitness accounts
to the life and miracles of Christ.”
Yeah, like the authors of the NT that never met Christ and wrote the books decades after JC’s death.
Or the forged Josephus mention of Christus. You’d think that if a guy could raise the dead and walk
on water, more people would mention it in their diaries!
Of course, I don’t need to mention that even if you gave me a good eyewitness that met *a* Jesus, it
pretty much just indicates that a rabbi named Jesus lived two millenia ago. You know how miracles
get attached to popular people, even today.
“I can present all manner of historical accounts by witnesses to the life and miracles of Christ,”
I’m not so sure you can do even that.
“If so, how do you propose to prove that only the evidence you are willing to accept is valid, and that all forms of evidence you are not willing to accept are invalid?”
Let’s do a thought experiment. You tell me how far you want to lower the bar for evidence, and we will discuss the matter from there. Does that sound fair?
“For as you can see, Holy Writ teaches that I should exercise judgement in like manner to how I would wish to be judged”
That does sound like an excuse to act holier-than-thou. Didn’t the bible say something about meekness and humility, or do you have a loophole there too?
“And if I am man enough to admit that I’d want someone to tell me I have a drinking problem in the extreme, I can in good conscience make a similar observation about Hitchens.”
Of course. You’re merely trying to help! Good one.
“Of course the joke is uninspired! It’s a joke about atheism and atheists, after all — considering the source, it’s amazing there’s a joke there at all.”
And the judge is still out on that one.
“Let me hazard a guess: you don’t grasp LOLcats, but find Zombie Jesus jokes hilarious?”
Yeah, lolcats is too high-brow for me.
“Well, we’re quite a bit further on in, and I remain unconvinced. You haven’t even tried to crack a joke that I can see.”
My jokes are sometimes subtle, I’m told. Christians seldom find me funny, even when they do spot one of my jokes. Perhaps god didn’t send me to your page to make you laugh? He’s so mysterious.
“There’s a certain social misfitism inherent in someone whose principal sources of humour involve spitting and shitting upon the beliefs of others, even beliefs he does not share”
So you’re taking the pictures down? I don’t understand. Surely you can see that you’re just as guilty of this as I am? (Okay, I’m probably worse, but I hope you get my point).
I take it you don’t think joking about politics is okay either then?
“For reference, that practice is called “hypocrisy” in polite society. And it would now seem apparent that you are, in fact, a hypocrite, and a fairly socially autistic one at that.”
Come on, you already used that one. Don’t I deserve some originality?
“…find more than a few examples of snark directed at such positions as these within my blog’s archive.”
That’s okay, I’ll take your word for it. Feel free to link me your best work, though.
“Actually, it’s mostly about the silliness. I mean, c’mon; if you get to have your blasphemy humour, I don’t see how you can complain if I have a bit of fun poking fun at Dick Dawkins.”
Hey, I’m all for free speech. Do what you want (no need to double check with me first).
Speaking of which, care to clarify your position? I understand you think your particular type of Christianity (which is?) is all true, and that you believe that the universe is older than 10000 years, but other than that? Are you a literalist? Are you an anti-gay person?
“As it is, however, pop internet atheists tend to do the opposite; people who start such “museums” are held to a fairly high standard (a well-deserved one, admittedly) of criticism, and comprehensive rebuttals to their absurd statements are routinely issued.”
Now that’s simply not true. Just because rebuttals are in place doesn’t mean that most of us don’t understand that this is the nuttiest kind of Christian.
By the way, what is a “pop atheist”?
“But when the likes of Dick Dawkins publishes an obviously polemical book, his statements are uncritically accepted, or pass by with only the barest amount of scrutiny and criticism; they are instead simply lapped up by his faithful flock no matter how absurd they might be.”
What particular part in his latest book were you expecting to see critiqued by atheists?
“And when Dawkins or his ilk are criticized, said same faithful quickly cirle the wagons and rail against the criticism of an intellectual or a professor with distinguished credentials and tenure.”
It’s almost like atheists and Christians disagree about something! At least the atheists don’t go burn books or put religion in science class over the issue.
“Oh please…is tu quoque all you’ve got?”
No, the paragraph continues. And here I thought Christians were all about context.
“Please tell me you aren’t mistaking me for an anti-evolutionist?”
My mistake. It was an assumption, but the point is still valid: if there’s good evidence in support of something, it will span across cultures and religions.
“It is true, however, that most atheistic apologetic arguments reduce to one of two basic claims”
You can reduce it to “there’s no evidence for your particular god” if you want (but I probably shouldn’t try to speak for all atheists like that. Shame on me). It’s quite simple.
““bad things happen to good people,” and “things seem to get on fine without God.” Indeed, these are the only two good arguments for atheism…and they aren’t even arguments!”
So why are they insufficient? I take it you basically agree with both of them.
“But in the end, it’s your last statement that’s the most telling — the appeal to science as (I assume) the highest truth.”
Look at it this way then: if the stuff you lay forth for your god disagrees with what I can see in nature, then it will look highly suspicious. What I like about science is that I can go out and in many cases produce the same results myself, also that it is self-repairing and highly critical of itself. I always get a laugh out of Christians that claim that there are world-encompassing conspiracies that try to hide the Truth from the common man. I’m not saying you do that, yet.
“You’re welcome to cruise the archives and find examples of various arguments ”
Not even a link? You know your blog better than I do and you could probably find one or two arguments that stood out in a couple of minutes. This compared to hours on my part (depending on how much you’ve written). Be a pal.
“the issue is whether you are a sufficiently honest, rational, humble and open person as to be able to follow a line of inquiry where it will lead, even if it leads you to change your mind.”
So your arguments need special treatment? Notice how people don’t usually say things like this when they try to prove something. Like I said before: it seems like apologetics is for believers because the arguments are too weak for any outsider.
“in the end, there’s a stark distinction between sacrificing detail and sacrificing the point. You opted for the latter.”
Nope, my point got out there just fine. But just because I’m such a caring person I elaborated when you asked me to. The point lives on!
“This is often (though not always) true”
When is it not?
“But now we must ask another question: by what reasoning is the Bible automatically discarded as a valid resource?”
Well, even though it is not always automatically discarded, there are a few problems with the book.
#1: It’s a sales pitch. The apparent purpose of the book is to push religion and fables as truth, not to be an accurate historical account of events.
#2: The bible has stolen most of it’s content from older religions (and I’m not talking only ancient Jewish religions here). Jesus stole the golden rule from Buddha, and apparently he stole his life’s story from people like Mithras and Osiris (I think it was Osiris). He then stole his birth- and death days from Pagans (etc). I mean, there are countless examples of why the bible is just a cut-and-paste work.
#3: The authors never met JC, and the NT was written decades after his death. And although I’m not an expert on the issue, some say most of the gospels are based on the first gospel (Mark’s? I can’t remember at the moment).
#4: It’s been translated many times.
#5: The bible started as an oral tradition (and we know that’s not at all reliable).
#6: It got historical facts wrong (from the top of my head: the emperor that made JC’s parents go back home was the wrong one). And I don’t know about you, but when you read a history book and it starts claiming that Hitler was clairvoyant I tend to doubt whether or not the rest of the book can be trusted.
#7: It’s been edited. Some Romans sat down and decided which of the existing texts should be Christian canon. So they cut out stuff, and put other stuff in. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea )
#8: It contradicts itself. Christians may argue that the “core of the bible is still the same,” which you really can’t argue with, since that’s pretty much just faith, through and through.
#9: The Qur’an contradicts the bible. “The Qur’an says Jesus wasn’t the son of God, what now, bitches?” Your holy book is just as good as the next one. Your religious text is just as believable as the book of Mormon.
#10: I seem to remember reading somewhere in the OT (I’m sure you know this part better than me) that you shouldn’t add more text to the word of god, and then came the NT. God is pissed.
There you go, that’s ten I picked from the top of my head. Sorry if I repeated myself, but I wanted to give you a nice comprehensive list (at least as comprehensive as you can expect in three minutes of writing/thinking).
“(re:miracles) Doubtless, you even think yourself rational for taking such a position.”
Sure, I’d say that’s a pretty sane stance.
“And at the end of the day, disregarding as evidence something which was…say…witnessed by over 70,000 witnesses, not all of whom were persons of faith, and attempting to dismiss the entire affair as a mass hallucination of uncertain cause, is not a particularly rational thing to do.”
Are you referring to something in particular or did you just throw out a number?
“How many times, I wonder, have you genuinely put your atheism on the line? I’ve put my faith on the line more times than I care to count, in argument after argument.”
If that’s what counts as putting it on the line, then I guess I have. I’ve read the bible several times, I went to Sunday school as a boy, debated with priests IRL/online (those are ironically enough the least capable of discussing with a non-believer in my experience). I don’t shy away from debating with Christians, but I’m sure I didn’t give you that impression.
How you handled snakes or drunk poison to test your faith?
“If I might make one suggestion, it would be that you continue this discussion only after you’ve thrown away your playbook.”
I’ll do that when you prove that you are unique.
“The most I could do is point out that salvation is contingent upon faith in Christ and fruitful participation in the grace of God…and that God will judge with righteousness”
How do you square this with the petty god of the OT?
“Here’s me in a nutshell: I’m an orthodox Catholic baptized in the Eastern (Ukrainian) Rite of the Church, but currently practicing my faith in the Western (Latin) Rite. I’m an evolutionary creationist — I fully accept the validity of the theory of evolution, and believe that evolution is an ordained, sustained, design-reflecting process which proceeds and continues in and through the love of God. I’m a committed husband (I hope!), a good father (I hope), a fine provider for the needs of my family (I hope), and an unrepentant fan of the Ultima series of games. And when I have time, I do a bit of Catholic apologetics on the side, and a bit of evolutionary creationist apologetics as well.”
You should have told me this earlier!
So, evolutionary creationist… How does this fit in with genesis and Noah’s ark? Is there anything in genesis that tell you that your particular creation story is better than, let’s say, the Norse myth one? How does this fit with big bangs and astronomy? Were you programmed from childhood with this particular religion? What’s your opinion on the pope?
Me? I’m a skeptic. An agnostic atheist (wiki if you’re unfamiliar). Oh, and I’m socially autistic.
PS: I realize I asked for details which you already gave, feel free to ignore those parts.
PS2: This is getting rather huge. Let’s make an effort to diminish the length of our replies. I’ll volunteer to cut out all of my funny jokes.
I’ll respond tomorrow.
That’s an overly narrow worldview, and then one which is actually self-contradictory. Things exist which are true and yet do not have empirical evidence to support them.
The conclusion does not follow: that some men have invented religions does not in any way mean that all religions have been invented by men. For a champion of science and empiricism, I would have thought your grasp on even such elementary reasoning as this would be…well…better.
We can get to Aquinas in a bit. We’re not done with you yet, though.
Is that the sum total of what proof is? How would you prove that you love someone in a court of law? Or in a science lab? How would you prove that you trust someone in a court of law, or in a science lab? And if you’re going to argue that love and trust are just figments of human imagination, the results of chemical interactions and hormonal secretions…then how can you prove that your own statements, ostensibly derived from reason, are anything but more such interactions and secretions?
In other words, how can we prove, in a court of law or a science lab, that you are worth listening to, and are speaking a truism rather than something which is merely the result of chemical misfires in your brain?
It’s true that some Christians don’t get this…but it’s also true that many Christians get what atheists do not: that there are things which are existent and objectively true which nevertheless cannot be proven to the satisfaction of either a court of law or a science lab.
And here’s the kicker: even you don’t work by this standard. Courts of law will accept eyewitness accounts of events as valid proof in a case, especailly if there are multiple corroborating accounts. And yet, you have already rejected from consideration any and every miraculous event in recorded history, despite the fact that many miracles have been attested to by multiple witnesses…hundreds or even thousands, in some cases.
Have your cake or eat it, Korinthian. You can’t do both.
There’s plenty of great evidence for God…but that’s not the problem. The problem is that some people (yourself included) will not accept any evidence which assaults the foundation of a belief they are determined to hold on to no matter what. You’ve probably encountered exactly this same circumstance when debating with Young Earth Creationists, if you have ever deigned to do so…did you ever stop to consider that you might be guilty of a similar close-mindedness where valid evidence is concerned, because your definition of what constitutes valid evidence is too narrow?
Probably not, methinks.
That’s a pretty dismal standard to aspire to, though.
So is the atheist conjecture, in your opinion, incorrect?
Let’s keep hold of this definition, for it will be useful (in the service of my argument) later on.
I’m not surprised that you’ve not been exposed to great Christian thinkers, though it’s still unfortunate that you have not. So you’ve never read Ratzinger? Woytyla? Aquinas? Augustine? Chesterton? That’s a mere five names out of hundreds, if not thousands.
As to Dawkins, he’s debated Christian scientists, yes…but not particularly good ones. To be fair, he did go a couple rounds with Francis Collins, and while Collins erred on a few points, he generally made a hash of what Dawkins had to say. Dawkins has actively refused to debate still better Christian thinkers than Collins, preferring to target easily-defeated Young Earther sub-pars. He’s a bully in other words, the heavyset sixth grade kid who prefers beating up on the second graders as opposed to his own classmates.
I disagree; then the debate can be about the real deal, as opposed to being about evidence for evolution. The evolution sideshow is just that: a sideshow, and then a dishonest one (since a Dawkins victory on the matter of evolution proves not one iota of one thing about whether God does, or does not, exist). Better that he debate someone who agrees with him on evolutionary matters, that he might have the opportunity to argue the case for atheism witout the fetters of a tangential argument.
But Dawkins is too much of a coward to accept an invitation to debate on these matters.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Dawkins and/or Hitchens get trounced by Theodore Beale on their many assertions about the evils of religion.
Presumably you have access to Google?
Theodore Beale is again a convenient example. While I don’t agree with some of his stances in regard to evolutionary theory, his dismantling of Dawkins’, Harris’, and Hitchens’ arguments against religion proper are tremendous. And I seem to recall that he’s challenged Dawkins to a debate before. I know for a fact he’s challenged P.Z. Myers to several.
Of course, Dawkins is a funny study himself; he’s on record as saying he won’t debate creationists…and yet seems to find time to do so all the same. On the basis of his aforementioned refusal, he’s refused to debate William Lane Craig, and yet seemed to have no problem with debating other less articulate creationists. There was another example of this recently, though I cannot remember the name of the woman he argued with.
I’m not exactly here to do your homework for you.
Hitchens is more colourful in his linguistic choices, yes, but Dawkins is no less given to offering insult in substitution of an actual point.
Occasionally, and Dawkins is better at doing so than is Hitchens. That said, neither man is particularly skilled in this area. Dawkins, like Hitchens, can deliver a point or deliver an insult, but does not usually do well when he attempts to offer both at the same time.
It’s a choice, whether you are impatient with others or not. Though I agree that it is often a strain to deal with Young Earthers.
But how often does even that happen?
That’s fair…but let’s be clear what we’re speaking of here. If, as is often the case with Dawkins, the audience is being asked to change their minds about God because of the outcome of a debate about evolution, that is both dishonest and fundamentally irrational; the existence of God and the validity of evolutionary theory are separate issues. In debates about evolution, Dawkins does well…but in what few formal debates about religion he will allow himself to become involved in, he often gets shown up for his shoddy grasp of the subject matter. Hitchens fares little better, and Harris is simply awful in debates. Even Dennett tends not to do well against a competent opponent; in a recent debate with Plantinga, he was reduced to offering cheap shots and insults.
And why do I suspect that while you’d have no problem with a debate in which the Christian can’t defend his position, you’d begin to whine loudly about various “unfair” burdens on the atheist debater if things started to turn against him instead.
When it doesn’t polarize the audience against you, that is. Like I noted previously, most people will tend not to agree with you if you make a point of shitting all over that which they hold dear.
Why not? Isn’t there some proven method? (heh)
Well, let’s distinguish between parts of the New Testament, though. The Gospels are the accounts of Christ’s life, wheras the rest of the New Testament is later teachings that proceed from Christ’s example. And the Gospels are most likely eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ, rather than later writings; there are competing hypothesis in this regard, but the ones that hold that the Gospels were written later on are not as well-supported by the evidence available.
The forgery hypothesis has fallen out of fashion lately…and was never all that well-supported to begin with.
You assume that the four canonical Gospels are the only such accounts known to exist?
It’s also a fact that fully 25% of Britons think Churchill — yes, Winston Churchill — is a mythical character, like King Arthur. Which goes to show that the specific quantity and quality of historical data attesting to the existence of a person is only half the battle; the acceptance of that data is the other half. You’ve demonstrated this principle handily; there’s no really great reason to reject the historicity of the Gospel accounts, other than that to do so would cast into doubt an a priori conclusion you have already decided you will refuse to change. So when I toss your way four reasonable, eyewitness accounts to the life and miracles of Jesus, your response is simply to say “yes, but is it the SAME Jesus?”
In other words, the issue is less what evidence is on offer, and more that you would not accept any evidence offered no matter what.
As Beale notes, “the Bible is extremely reliable by every secular standard for historical documents; it is arguably the most reliable ancient text in human history by those standards. If you’re going to reject the historical veracity of the Bible – which has repeatedly proven to be more accurate than the contrary assertions of archeologists and historians – then you must likewise reject the entire written history of Man.”
The more interesting question is whether you’d accept it, or whether you’d find a reason to reject it. You’re not so different from a Young Earth Creationist, I suspect; the weight of evidence presented is irrelevant, because you are not a man of sufficient integrity as to be able to humbly submit himself to the risk that he might have to change his mind upon due consideration.
Would it be lowering the bar? Or would we simply be widening the definition of “evidence” to a reasonable, rational, accurate width, as opposed to the overly narrow standard previously posed by yourself.
Which is basically to say: if you want to see evidence for God that is testable in a laboratory, good frakkin’ luck with that; “in carefully controlled laboratory trials, God has been shown to do whathever the heck He pleases.” But then, by the same token, how do you propose to prove beyond all doubt that only lab-testable evidence is valid evidence of what is true or exists? What lab-testable evidence can you offer in support of this assertion?
It’s not a case of holier than thou; it’s a case of correcting error when one perceives it in another. Obviously, one does well to be mindful that one is not perfect, but that my no means frees us from the obligation to point out that a brother or sister has fallen into sin and confusion.
Shame has its place.
How unexpectedly poignant of you.
A better example then: you didn’t get what the crap the Dicky D Rap was about, but think Zombie Jesus is just the shit?
There’s subtle, there’s ninja, and then there’s “no, really, I SWEAR to you that I was right there all along, really.”
Believe me, if your thang is for obtuse humour, you’re in front of the best audience possible right now. Not that said audience is impressed or even mildly amused yet, but do feel free to highlight any jokes made up to this point that I might re-evaluate their comedic merits.
Perhaps He didn’t send you here for any purpose which holds me as its principal object; perhaps I am filling only an agentic role instead?
In the end, I’m not attacking atheism in the posters; I’m attacking the arguments of the men depicted. Except maybe in the Hitchens poster, although to be fair Hitchens’ arguments are usually irrational anyhow, and so might make a deal more sense in a state of inebriation.
Nope, can’t see it.
There’s a difference between taking a political position or statement and satirizing it and demonizing a person because of his political affiliations, though.
To offer the Catholic answer: you must merit it.
I’m not here to do your homework for you.
Another bit of common cause we find. I suppose one takes them where they can be found.
“Anti-gay” is too nebulous a phrase for me to give a satisfactory answer to. What is “anti-gay,” according to your definition of the phrase?
As it is, I’ve answered the rest of this already, at least in brief. Answering the “but other than that” part of your question would take a book…although fortunately, such a book has already been written.
You totally missed my point, it seems.
There are two main strains: New Atheists and their internet-dwelling flocks of fawning adorers. Note that these two groups constitute only a subset of all atheism, though a rather disproportionately vocal and nasty one.
If you’re all as objective, evidence-driven, and rational as you claim…all of it.
Wrong on the first point, in a sense (China, North Korea, Soviet Russia, etc.). The second point is also incorrect in a sense, given that until only recently, science textbooks in the US taught that evolution was an unguided process, which is a metaphysical statement. A purely scientific statement would simply label evolution a process by which species develop adaptations to changes in their environments; to add the label of “unguided” to it implies something metaphysical, just as surely as adding the label of “guided” to it would. The second label is a teleological one, the first an atheistic one.
So in a sense, at least some atheists are attempting — or in the past have attempted — to “put [atheism] in science class over the issue.”
The comment on tu quoque was not damaging to the overall context.
Which is why Christianity never became anything more than a trite regional phenomenon with adherents in only a handful of nations, I suppose.
Now who’s having his way with context?
And yet remain a Christian, strangely!
The argument against God that hinges on “bad things happen to good people” is irrelevant to a Christian; our Scriptures are full of teachings and warnings concerning the suffering of the faithful. That and Christ kind of got nailed to a tree, which really is kind of the logical ultimate of a bad thing happening to a good person.
The argument against God that hinges on “things seem to run fine without God” is also irrelevant, because appearances and “the actual” are often divergent. Light appears to be energy, and so should be expected to travel in a wave…yet this isn’t exactly the case, is it?
If you were familiar with Aquinas, you’d know that Christianity has had a cogent response to these arguments for…what…1300 years or so?
Granted, atheists often attempt to offer up other arguments, but most of them reduce to one of these two…or to a poor grasp of history, literary genre, and textual analysis and criticism. But hopefully we won’t have to get into that.
That’s fair, but you won’t be able to name even one example of an occurrence in nature which disagrees with the tentets about God to which I — and about a billion other people world-wide, to varying degrees — hold.
The first part of the claim is true. The second part is sometimes true.
You won’t find any of those here; I’m not one for conspiracies. That said, one notes that atheists — per your definition of the term — are actually more likely to buy in to that paranormal crap. I believe it was Chesterton who said that the man who professes to believe in nothing will typically believe in anything.
Nope; I’m not here to do your homework.
But where’s the fun in that? I have a comprehensive tagging system in place, and a fairly precise categorization system; feel free to take advantage of both. There’s also a search form at the top of the page. You’re arguing on the Internet, fergoshsakes…what else are you going to do with your time?
Besides, are you seriously asking me to pick my best articles, out of a battery of almost 4,000? Granted, not all of those have something to do with religion, though a significant number of them do. And to be fair, I couldn’t pick the best, because there are many which are very good.
Is it special treatment to expect of you the same thing you expect of an audience in a debate? If you’re here just to argue against any point presented to you, you’re welcome to seek out points to argue against elsewhere on the blog, but don’t expect me to feed them to you. If you’re here with an open mind, as I am labouring to afford you, that’s somewhat different…but at this point, it’s also something I need you to establish to me beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actually, it’s more a case of using my time effectively. Let’s face it: I’m writing this in what narrow windows of time I can spare. While it would be possible to launch into many different and topically varied apologetic arguments, it would be a waste of time if you’ve opted to be just another close-minded interloper before the discussions even begin to move in that direction. We’ve already got a lot to cover just in the limited exchange we’ve had already; adding a layer of formal apologetics would only serve to magnify my workload…a workload that I’d have to fit into an already jam-packed schedule.
So I’m instead attempting to figure out which category you fit into: someone who it is worth spending the time on, or someone who is just a waste of time (in that regard). Thus far, you’re trending toward the latter…and until I’m convinced that you’re a candidate for the former, you’re welcome to look at my other articles for yourself.
I think you missed something along the way.
I suppose now you’ll expect me to sort through a few hundred articles to provide an example of this, too?
Is that its purpose, or is that just how some use it? An objective reader would note that most of the book is given over to histographical or historical accounts concerning the Hebrew people, followed by historical accounts concerning Christ and His followers, and subsequent evangelists. And yes, there is often an exhortation to faith in the sayings of these figures…but that is because in truth, that is what they said, and for good reason.
So you’re not a fan of conspiracy theories, but you totally buy in to this comparitive mythology crap? Interesting.
Actually, this is a point of amusement for me on several counts. Firstly, I love how atheists like to throw this one out as though it’s some grand secret; while it’s true that the average Christian layperson may not have heard of Mithra or the cults pertaining thereto, it’s certainly NOT the case that the Church herself was unaware. Indeed, if the writings of e.g. Justin Martyr are anything to go by, the early Church was very aware of Mithraism.
But of course, there’s more to it than that. Firstly, which Mithraism are we talking about here — Roman or Persian/Pan-Arabian/Indian? The former is typically the one that is most often equated with Christianity, and I’ll admit that there are some basic similarities between the practices of the Church and those of the Mithraic cults. But these similarities are not particularly compelling evidence, either. More to the point, there are several key differences between Mithraism and Christianity which pretty much nullify the hypothesis you’re putting forward here:
“(1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past — these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing.
(2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: “hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus” (“we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us”). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence.
(3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well-known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty.”
The last point is embedded in the above quote: Roman Mithraism, if you actually look at the pertinent dates in that cult’s history, more probably borrowed tenets from Christianity rather than the other way around.
As to other points: the Golden Rule is a fairly commonly found tenet in most religions and philosophical systems, but it’s a real stretch to claim that Jesus “stole” the idea. After all, if Jesus was nothing more than a poor rabbi in Judea, how would He even have known about Buddhism? The Son of God could and would certainly have known about the Buddhists, but you’re not likely to admit that this was Jesus’ nature.
More to the point, however, Jesus did not simply teach the Golden Rule. In a sense, he taught against it, or, rather, taught that the Golden Rule is itself incomplete. Theodore Beale pointed out a while back that the flaw in the Golden Rule is that it makes permissible actions we undertake that we would want the object of those actions to do to us as well (e.g. it would be legitimate, under a strict interpretation of the Golden Rule, for us to sneak into Adrianna Lima’s bed, assuming that we wouldn’t mind if she ever did the same to us at some other point in time). To address this flaw, Jesus added two additional teachings: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength,” and “Love your enemies and do good to those who hurt you.”
The first addition, when taken alongside the Golden Rule, restricts abuses of the rule by also binding us to observe the ordinances set out in revelation; since God forbids adultery and fornication, sneaking into Adrianna Lima’s bed is not a course of action we can pursue no matter how we might feel about her reciprocating the action. The second addition, when taken alongside the Golden Rule, binds us to afford all people — those we love and those we do not love — the same standard of treatment. This stands in opposition to tribalism and nationalism. And both additions to the Golden Rule are pretty much unique to Christianity.
Well, there’s the Q-Source hypothesis, certainly. But the fact is, the canonical Gospels can all be dated to within the lifetimes of actual apostles of Christ.
So learn Greek and Aramaic and read the original-language manuscripts, as many others have done.
True, but so did all of recorded history.
Minor errors are to be expected in some historical accounts, especially eyewitness accounts. In a certain strange way, they actually lend veracity to the multiple accounts.
And, as Beale notes: “[the "inconsistencies"] argument represents a failure to understand the significance of the Bible being written by men inspired by God. The occasional contradiction may well trouble the hardcore Biblical literalist, but since I am multilingual and have read at least parts of the Bible in three languages, I know that there are a number of trivial differences from text to text. Ergo, they are not all flawless; they cannot be. Since the filter is imperfect, the message we receive is necessarily imperfect…which is exactly what we are told in the Bible!
As for [specific contradictions concerning who was governor at the time of Christ's birth], it could be an inconsistency or it could simply be that our historical knowledge is incomplete. The fact that historical scholars, who know that there was a previous citizen census three years before, find it difficult to believe that the Romans would have taken a non-citizen census in Judea while Herod was alive does not mean that the Romans did not. Given the long list of historians who were certain they had proved the Bible to be incorrect, only to eventually discover that they were wrong, I would avoid placing too much import on apparent inconsistencies regarding the dates surrounding an undated event. Are you willing to accept the historical truth of the Bible should documentation eventually be discovered which demonstrates there is no Biblical inconsistency surrounding Quirinus? If not, you cannot reasonably reject it on that sole basis either.
I’ve read far too many minor inconsistencies in otherwise reliable historical works to be bothered about the possibility of something like this; it would be much more problematic if Luke had identified someone who did not exist at all as the governor… or the king. But this is one reason why I regard total infallibility doctrines, be it of the Bible or the Pope, to be pernicious. My belief is that because we cannot be certain of what is perfectly expressive of God’s Will and what is clouded by Man’s inability to perfectly transmit that Will, the wise Christian will not overly fuss about the details but instead focus on following what are for the most part perfectly clear instructions on how to live.”
Now, obviously I disagree with Beale concerning papal infalibility, but in general he’s bang on. I could probably flip open a modern history textbook and find factual errors therein…but would that ruin the text for me? Of course not; one expects humans to make the occasional mistake.
Yes. But equally: so what? They cut the list down from a few hundred Scriptures to 72 core texts which communicated the necessary truths of the Christian faith and its roots and indications in the history of the Hebrew people. I thought you’d be happy at their precision, personally.
Minor contradictions, yes…but equally, so what? Beale covers much of this above.
And in the end, the exact number of baths possessed by King David isn’t really important to a Christian’s faith.
The Koran and the Book of Mormon are false texts, plain and simple. Actually, there’s a German university that has been piecing together for a number of decades now the exact sources of the Koranic texts; much of it seems to stem from heretical and schismatic Jewish and early Christian/Gnostic movements.
Except that the principal figure in the NT is God made flesh. I’m pretty sure he’s okay with the extra books.
The message technically appears twice: once in Deuteronomy (if memory serves) and once in Revelation.
And it’s ten I’ve seen before and addressed before. Did you have something…I don’t know…better?
The three minutes shows.
So it’s “sane” to demand evidence for God that would be accepted in a court of law, but also “sane” to reject events which can and have been attested to by multiple witnesses, even thousands in some cases?
I’m referring to a particular event, but it amuses me to leave it as an excercise for you to find out exactly what.
There’s a difference between reading the Bible for the sake of reading it, and reading the Bible with an open mind. The same is true for a debate, and for attending any religious classes. It’s the core of Platonic philosophy, really:
Not snakes or poison per se…but I’ve had my brushes and tests. Indeed, I’ve almost been overcome at least twice — I very nearly became an atheist once, and very nearly became an Episcopalian once. As I said earlier, I’m willing to put my faith on the line in every situation, and there have been at least two times where that risk has almost caused me to concede my faith, because I was faced with postulations or problems that I could not see a way around.
The beauty of Christianity, however, is that it is not a solo enterprise; it is a community. And one of the key roles of community members is to give edification to each other, to build up each other in faith and understanding. I was fortunate, in the case of my near miss with Episcopalianism, that I had good and wise friends to point out to me where my reasoning had failed. In the first case, it took a direct encounter with Christ, in the Sacraments, to pull me back.
I suppose that’s worth pointing out, too; you’re not dealing with a conventional believer here. I don’t have “faith” in the way you probably would define the term; my faith in Christ is informed and bolstered by the fact that I have directly encountered Him and known what it is to be in His presence. Indeed, I am both alive and not an atheist today because of the experience! A later temptation was able to chip away at my belief in the authority of the Catholic Church, but was never able to shake the foundation of my faith in Jesus.
It’s not that I’m unique; I’m actually quite drearily common for the most part. My understanding of theology is perhaps a bit above the average, and I’d like to think I have some talent with my camera and Adobe Lightroom…but in the main, I’m happily average.
That said, I’m getting the sense that thus far, you’ve been following something almost like a prepared approach; you have the air of one who is simply reciting things often repeated. Yet a quick review of our discussion should make clear that your conventional boilerplate is ill-suited to this discussion.
So it’s not for my sake that I suggest a shift in tactics; it’s for yours. I’m just zis guy, you know? But you’re really not presenting a challenge to me with what you’ve said so far; I’ve already, at various points in my history, encountered and responded to each and every one of the arguments you’ve offered so far.
Simple, really: God in the OT isn’t petty; that’s just a label close-minded men opt to append to Him.
But please, cite all the examples you want. Maybe you’ll offer up one I haven’t seen yet. :)
You should have researched your opponent! ;)
It accepts that Genesis 1-11 are historgraphical oral traditions of the early Hebrew people which serve not as a literal account of the early history of the world, but as vehicles for an inspired, divine message about the creatorship of God, the unique position of man in the hierarchy of creation, and the fallen nature that man possesses. Or, to put it somewhat more succinctly, it treats Genesis 1-11 as a series of parables imparted through human authorship under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
No, but then, that is because there isn’t meant to be anything in Genesis that works toward that end. Genesis exists to inform us of certain truths; the literal history of the world is not among these.
Quite nicely, thank you.
And actually, it serves to note that the Big Bang theory was formulated and championed by a Catholic priest.
My parents are Catholic, if that’s what you mean. I can’t say they did a particularly good job instructing me or my siblings in the faith, however; indeed, as I’ve mentioned, I nearly lost my faith when I had only their tutelage to draw upon.
I have since come to realize for my own that the Catholic faith is true. Strangely enough, many in my family have lapsed from the faith for various reasons, most of them having to do with emotionalism rather than compelling reason or actual doctrinal error on the part of the Church.
So I think it would be fair to say that I haven’t really been programmed. Indeed, at most family functions, I usually wind up arguing with family members — even ostensibly Catholic ones — about matters religious. My family often pretends at being Catholic, but do not usually live up to the standard imposed by that declaration of faith.
In the main, my Catholicism owes very little (if anything) to my parents; it was in the bare-knuckle arena of web forum apologetics, and in arguments both with anti-Catholic Protestants and militant atheists in those venues, that my faith was truly formed — I had to learn it, and learn it well, or else learn why it was false. As you can see, the former has been the case since then.
But what about you, Korinthian? Who programmed you in your non-belief? Did you come from a secular home, or a religious one? Were you indoctrinated with atheist tenets in later life, or did you come to a conclusion as a child? And in the latter case, have you simply done as Dawkins or Hitchens has done and hung on to every irrational postulation necessary to protect the conclusion arrived at by that scared little boy?
Or are you one of those idiots who thinks that all religious believers are programmed (and that nobody could truly, freely choose religion), while all atheists are freethinkers who have shed the trappings of mysticism and tradition in favour of the cold light of reason?
I’m quite a fan of B16, actually, and greatly enjoy reading his books and encyclicals.
You’re also a bit patronizing; I’m fairly familiar with the standard categories that bear the labels “agnostic” and “atheist.” You’re hardly the first one I’ve debated, after all. And did I notice that your StumbleUpon profile was “R-rated?” Or is that another Korinthian?
As you can see, I was able to respond to them without being too repetitive.
You’ve come to the wrong place if you want a short conversation; I’ve never been good at brevity.
Come now, Korinthian. You didn’t answer some of the questions posed to you. Especially the one about programming — are children of atheist parents similarly programmed into being atheists. Also, I’m not sure what you gain from knowing my parents are Catholic; they taught me not one iota about the actual deep meaning of the faith, and in fact were the ones who ultimately set me up (by that lack of education) for my later “near miss” with atheism.
And what about you, my man? Were you brought up (“programmed”) as an atheist?
Also, I seem you went with the “we’re all born atheist” argument. In addition to being not true, it’s one I’ve…er…commented on before. Were I more flippant, I’d simply snap back that at least you can admit that atheism is, at its core, an infantile belief…I think there are better responses to that particular ludicrous claim.
I’m holding the remainder of your comments in moderation for now, and will put up a blog post shortly explaining why.
That’s one way of getting the last word I guess. Disappointing, but expected.
Did I say the discussion was over? Then do not put words in my mouth.
You’ll have a chance to respond, and every word of your last submitted comment will be published…and then to the front page, not just to this piddly little comments form.
If you want to lecture me on expectedness, look first at yourself: you’ve now twice dodged the question about atheist children being “programmed” into atheism by their parents. This for good reason, no doubt; it would force you to admit that your own philosophical position can be imprinted on a person every bit as much as any religious philosophical position can be. And it would also open the door to the discussion of how atheism can be correlated with “daddy issues” or parental authority issues of various sorts…or with just not being hugged enough as a child, for that matter. Atheism, then, is not the default position of reason, nor is it the default position of humanity…it is, more often than not, an emotive response, grounded in irrationality.
But as it is, fear thou not: I’ve saved every submitted word, and will repost all in due time. Moreover, I’ve retained the notification email the blog sent me when you left the comment; I can and will (if necessary) produce this at a later date if it becomes necessary to do so.
I’m not cutting and running, and I’m not particularly interested in getting the last word at this point (though as this is my blog, the odds are that I will get the last word at some point); you’ll have plenty of abilities to respond to what’s coming.
Again: I’m making you front page material! You should be happy! The discussion is about to get much more interesting from here on in.
That’s one way of getting you to actually respond instead of giving me mysterious lines about “I might tell you something about my not publishing your reply if you keep reading my blog”.
I will continue this discussion when you have actually done what you just said you would.
Contact me by email when you are ready to do so, because like I’ve said before: you’re more interested in me than vice versa.
Don’t flatter yourself too much; you unwittingly provided a suitable framework for an apologetic work I had previously planned to undertake, but for which I couldn’t settle on a suitable framework. You arranged your arguments, poor as they were, in a rather…”useful”…way, so thank you for that.
I’ll gladly inform you when the complete work is on the blog. I’ve not yet decided whether it will be comprised of one single article or several distinct articles, but either way…you’ll be notified.
And I notice that you still haven’t answered some of the questions posed to you. I’m going to assume this is the result of belligerent refusal on your part, rather than the result of inability, and I hope other readers will be as charitable.
Again, don’t flatter yourself. May I remind you that it was you who took sufficient interest as to stoop to offer this pathetic, programmed, deluded theist the benefit of the cold light of your reason, as well as your sly humour and subtle wit. I did not solicit you for a response; you offered one freely.
So who, really, is the more interested in the other? It’s true I’d like to better categorize you as a person, so as to better formulate my responses to you, but that is not the same thing as interest. Interest is what brought you here, and what keeps you here.
If we assume that you — in your atheism — are correct, then you are little more than a collection of atoms, an irrelevant meaty outer shell which serves as a kind of petri dish for the chemical and hormonal chaos raging within you. That said, you are a collection of atoms which is serving in the role of the vehicle by which a collection of statements has been delivered unto me, that I — another collection of atoms — might use as source material for a chemically- and hormonally-driven effusion of words and thoughts that, despite their essentially random and irrelevant nature, I will choose to refer to by the abstract term “reasoning.”
If we assume that I — in my Catholicism — am correct, then there is more intrinsic value to the both of us, both in you serving as the unwitting vehicle by which my inspiration arrives, and in me as well.
I wasn’t sure if I had left my email on here, which would be quite unfair of me. I do think this has been an interesting discussion, up to the point where you removed my entire response and then started demanding that I answer your questions after you had censored me.
I said I would continue the discussion after you had put in my reply, and I will stick to my word.
Surely I don’t need to tell you how unfair it would be for you to use your moderating powers to come out in your favor? But it’s not like lying for Jesus is unheard of.
This time I put my email in the mail field above the comment box, but in case that goes awry my email is the obvious one at gmail.com.
I will check back in a few days if you pray really hard for it.
You did, but thanks for the confirmation.
Let’s clear one point up here; nothing was removed that was published at any point. No comment gets posted to the site until I specifically approve it for posting. That said, everything does get approved…but the procedure itself must still be followed. I believe the comment form displays your comment for you to see, but it was never published for public viewing…and so was not removed, either.
Since the entirety of your comment will be published in due course, I haven’t censored you either. But as it is, yes, I reserve the right to demand answers to specific questions posed; it’s my blog, after all. You skipped some pretty key points.
I’d like to afford you the opportunity to give a complete reply to statements already made, which you have yet to do.
If I’m lying, produce evidence of the lie, or retract the statement.
Let’s also be clear on what’s happening here: I’m not censoring you, though I am delaying the publication of your submitted content for a while. You’re free to suspend or continue the discussion pending its eventual posting, of course, but don’t assume I’m doing this simply to “come out ahead.” I’m doing this to make you front page material (and more), in order that this debate be elevated beyond its current limited form.
More’s the risk to me for doing so, once the article(s) are ready for publication.
This might be a good time for you to do some research, you know? Maybe dive into some Aquinas?
Duly noted.
That’s not something I’d pray for; I try not to ask for things for myself.
Blind sad man.. Accuse me of lacking arguments, but let’s not waste words.
As there are two (now three, assuming that you’re male, Vif) men party to this conversation, plus four men indicated in the pictures above…which of the seven men are “blind” and “sad?”
“I’m doing this to make you front page material (and more), in order that this debate be elevated beyond its current limited form.”
Well, you have my approval. It’s nice to see that you recognize my raw animal magnetism and the awesome effects it may or may not have on adoring hoards of Christian and atheist girls.
It’s just too bad that it is taking you this long, but I’m sure that’s got everything to do with RL stuff instead of you having problems answering my post.
And I might just wiki Aquinas (because wikipedia is the ultimate source of information, as you well know), but I’m telling you now: I’ll be very disappointed in you if it’s just a bunch of arguments I’ve already encountered.
It might be interesting to find out what a Christian considers to be a great thinker and how much smarter than him I am.
I missed this part: I’d like to afford you the opportunity to give a complete reply to statements already made, which you have yet to do.
For the record I didn’t really read much of what you posted after having not published my post, but feel free to post all the things you feel that I didn’t answer in your reply and I will do my best to fill in what I missed.
Then at the end of this, we can tally the results of unanswered questions and see who comes out on top. I’m sure I don’t need to point out what I believe that the score stands at this far.
Yes, I’m sure that’s what it is.
Trust me, there’s nothing in your post that’s causing me problems. If you’re ignorant enough to use the “atheism is the default mode” argument, I very much doubt you even have an argument in your arsenal that would so much as give me pause.
That said, I’m trying to write a book here. Real life certainly gets in the way of that, but so does accumulating a sufficient number of cross references and sources.
I’ve never looked into Wiki’s summation of Aquinas or the Summa, so I can’t speak to its accuracy. I can point you to an online transcription of the Summa, if you like…but if not, do by all means pursue the lesser (and less accurate) information. Straw men are easier to assail, anyhow.
You’re likely to find arguments in the Summa that you have come across before; let’s face it, the book was written hundreds of years ago. The question will be whether you have ever seen or given complete rebuttals to the arguments it puts forth, and whether you will have considered all that Aquinas considers. In some respects, the saint himself has probably explored much deeper into arguments against faith than many atheists have.
You’ll love what I’m working on, then.
I believe my response to being asked to do your homework for you is also a matter of public record.
I’ve made a point, thus far, of answering every question or comment of yours to some extent; when I finish what I’m working on, that record will remain intact. Against this, you have already begun skipping over questions put to you. For the sake of your ego, then, I would advise against such a tally. A shred too much honesty might prove inexorably damaging to you.
you have already begun skipping over questions put to you
Yes, and I explained why, and when I will answer the ones you think require elaboration. I have no illusions that you will do the same for me, but I’m comfortable being the bigger man.
Notice how I skip being drawn into an argument about things you point out until you have made good on your word (within a reasonable time period, one would hope).
You explained it. We’ve left undiscussed whether it was a valid or compelling explanation, which it was (in fact) not.
So why ask for their re-iteration?
I’m working to answer your responses as submitted, regardless of whether you add to them. A more complete response would be possible if you did answer them, but they will be answered all the same.
You’ll have to define “reasonable,” I’m afraid. It’s a book’s worth of text that will be produced; what is a reasonable timeline for such an undertaking, in your view? And what evidence can you present to prove that your understanding of “reasonability” is valid, or even a decent simulacrum of actual reasonability?
We’ve left undiscussed whether it was a valid or compelling explanation, which it was (in fact) not.
Well, I could say the same about your recent choices as well. In fact, I could say that you ought to spend the time you spend responding to these comments commencing what we started. But who am I to tell others how to not procrastinate?
So why ask for their re-iteration?
That’s not a very bright question for the owner of a blog and as the writer of a ‘book’.
So it will be coherent, and easy to read, of course.
I mean, you’ve already chosen to split this discussion in two (and hopefully that’s where you will stop cutting).
I’m glad one of us is thinking of your reader/s!
I’m working to answer your responses as submitted
I was talking about the ones you have already dodged. But if you plan on answering those too, then accept my apology for my assumption.
You’ll have to define “reasonable,” I’m afraid. It’s a book’s worth of text that will be produced; what is a reasonable timeline for such an undertaking, in your view?
Well, I’m sure you could ask anyone and the answer would differ from person to person, but normally I’d have assumed that the other guy had ran away if I hadn’t gotten a proper reply in a week or two.
Of course, you have given a vague excuse and have stayed in contact which changes the circumstances a bit, I guess.
Perhaps you are just slower (or more busy) than the average Joe… But it makes me dread to wonder how long I will have to wait for the response after the upcoming one.
Who knows, you might make it interesting enough to sit in suspense!
You assume it’s procrastination? I call it additional research.
I don’t know; it seems a fairly pertinent one from here. You ask for a reiteration of questions you have no intention of answering at this time. Toward what logical end could such a request possibly be directed?
You’ll find verifiable evidence elsewhere on the site that the plural is the correct term.
But as it is, it does not seem to be the case that my audience is all that fazed by the gap in the discussion, and then for good reason: I have a demonstrable history of moving comments out into the open when I say it is my intent to do so. The interval will be longer in this specific case, but that is because the result will be substantially larger than a single blog post.
Apology accepted.
A “week or two” to write, reference, spell/grammar-check, edit, and self-publish a book seems…well, a little inadequate. Or more than a little; I’ve never attempted something like this before, so I won’t have the benefit of having learned how to optimize the process.
How charitable.
It’s a combination of things. Certainly, life is busy; when I’m not at my desk job, I’m at home with my wife and baby girl; I get little enough time at my desk to plunk away at things, and no time at home whatsoever. The “in between” times are where most of my writing can take place, and that fact itself presents certain problems. On the bus or train, I am fortunate to have space enough to use my laptop only 33% of the time, at a guess. The rest of the time, I opt to tap out the next little bit of content using Quickoffice on my iPod Touch.
Were it not for the fact that my typing speed on the Touch is rather dismal, I’d be tempted to go for a pop culture WIN! by writing the entire book on the iPod. As it is, though, I don’t want to spend the next two years writing it, so that won’t be how it goes.
Perhaps I should see if there’s a generic “status bar” plugin for Wordpress.
I call it additional research.
Talking to me here is additional research? Well, whatever you choose to call it, I hope it comes with links for once!
I don’t know; it seems a fairly pertinent one from here. You ask for a reiteration of questions you have no intention of answering at this time. Toward what logical end could such a request possibly be directed?
This is where I mention you publishing my cut out comment and you say “Oh, right!” and slap yourself on the forehead.
This is to put the discussion back on track instead of skipping all over the place, confusing me terribly (I was always a bad multi-tasker).
“You’ll find verifiable evidence elsewhere on the site that the plural is the correct term.”
I haven’t really read your blog as you have been very difficult on the issue, and I feel that such behavior shouldn’t be rewarded. But I’m glad there are some readers out there. After 4000 posts it would be a shame if there were none.
A “week or two” to write, reference, spell/grammar-check, edit, and self-publish a book seems…well, a little inadequate. Or more than a little; I’ve never attempted something like this before, so I won’t have the benefit of having learned how to optimize the process.
Well, I can’t help you to think and prioritize. All I can do is to mock you when your excuses do not seem to hold water. All in good nature, of course.
How charitable.
Without having to be told by Jesus first, no less! Maybe I’m going to heaven after all.
Were it not for the fact that my typing speed on the Touch is rather dismal, I’d be tempted to go for a pop culture WIN! by writing the entire book on the iPod
Now that might just be the stuff for a book in itself!
See, right here, we have an inaccuracy: I have used links in comments in this very discussion already. Your willingness to bend the truth here is instructive.
We’re not talking about answers already given to questions already asked. We’re talking about answers not given to questions already asked. Publishing your comment would not serve to further anything in regard to the unanswered questions.
Moreover, publishing it would make necessary an immediate response, which would give too much away. O have no personal or moral objections to publishing your comment, then; my reasons are entirely derived from professional concern.
I can relate; I cannot multi-task, and in fact it annoys me greatly when I do not have an opportunity to pursue a task to its proper end point without being called away to address other matters.
I spend a great deal of time being annoyed to some degree, as you might well imagine; there are many things apart from writing that consume my time during a typical day, including this and several other websites, my job proper, my family, and the normal physiological functions I am obliged to perform. Sleeping is, I find, the biggest time-waster in this last category.
But as it is, I fail to see what is all that confusing here; my questions to you remain published above. If you like, I can forward you the notification email I received regarding your comment, which contains its complete text, so you can cross-reference.
I don’t know about that. As noted in another article, I write this blog as much to keep notes for myself as to communicate with others (if not more so for myself than for others). And I use it to aggregate various bits of media of interest, both of my own creation and not (where licensing permits).
It might be a shame if nobody ever followed links to the site that other bloggers feel are worth putting out there…but as it is, this has never happened.
I was unaware that “mockery” had a “good natured” aspect to it. Light ribbing, certainly, but mockery is necessarily intended first out of cruelty or spite.
Ah, but is it actually the case that you were not told by Christ? Which is to say: could it be a vestige of that which was written onto your presumably human heart from the moment of your formation?
It is a tempting thought. “Pretty to think so,” as I believe Hemingway wrote.
Your willingness to bend the truth here is instructive.
It’s obvious that I’m a spawn of Satan since I willfully bent the truth in this malignant way! That you didn’t understand what level of seriousness I was operating on is similarly instructive, although depressing.
Publishing your comment would not serve to further anything in regard to the unanswered questions.
We are going in circles. I have told you that I will elaborate on the issues in question when you bring them up in your reply. We have gone through this already.
But as it is, I fail to see what is all that confusing here; my questions to you remain published above. If you like, I can forward you the notification email I received regarding your comment, which contains its complete text, so you can cross-reference.
How about you just paste them into your reply? Much simpler while also making me happy. I have told you when I will resume the discussion, and that simple requirement is perfectly reasonable. (I’m getting feelings of deja vu).
I was unaware that “mockery” had a “good natured” aspect to it. Light ribbing, certainly, but mockery is necessarily intended first out of cruelty or spite.
Well, if you ever think I’m being too harsh, make sure to let me know. I wouldn’t want you to take the easy way out and ban me mid-conversation for some percieved slight.
I think I might have already told you that you can attempt to be as mean and petty as you want toward me. I’m a believer in forgiveness and letting others display obvious signs of weakness.
“Ah, but is it actually the case that you were not told by Christ? Which is to say: could it be a vestige of that which was written onto your presumably human heart from the moment of your formation?”
Uh oh. We’re heading into the territory where I won’t go until you uncensor me.
Feel free to include that in your reply, however, it is an interesting question for sure.
Did I say that?
If you were being funny, you’re just not as funny as you think you are. If you were being serious, you were just incorrect. Either way, I trust you have adequate coping skills?
Yes, but some of the questions to which I am pointing are separate issues from the ones that will be discussed at present, per the response you did submit and what I will write around it.
That was the plan from the get-go.
Quite.
Thing is, the discussion will branch at that point; it is unlikely that you would even remember this discussion past that point, given that you will have multiple things to respond to at and past that time.
If you want to answer unaddressed things in THIS thread, have at it.
Or you could just not be insulting in general, though I’ll accept it if you tell me that you lack the capacity.
I’m content to respond with slightly less than I am addressed with.
Then have at it: you haven’t been censored in the first place (as I already explained). Delayed, yes, but not for reasons having to do with censorship.
At present, it’s not within the scope. Feel free to make it so by offering a response.
Just found your Sodahead blog, BTW. Odd little collection, that.
I notice that you present a very one-sided, biased picture of religion, especially concerning prayer. Fine, if that’s your bag…but I will caution you that expecting me to somehow fit into that general mold will probably not get you anywhere. I’m no fundie, after all, and I’m not going to end up addressing you like some of the expectorant folks you quote on your profile page.
That said, I do note a profound anti-social bent in your content and presentation, and furthermore note that you don’t seem to have a firm grasp of what evidence actually is, just as you have no real concept of how the success or failure of prayer can actually be evaluated. This will be a detriment to you if you do intend to continue the discussion as you claim. I see no tangible evidence of a person who is, at his core, rational.
That said, kudos to you for volunteering at a children’s hospital. It’s a pity you took the wrong lessons away from the experience, but it’s good that you devoted some of your time to the sick all the same. You’re not completely hopeless.
Topic shift: what’s your opinion on the burgeoning Muslim demographic in Sweden?
I think this is a point that’s as good as any to stop this tangent of a discussion. I feel that it lacks substance and has degraded to squabbling over either nothing or the same old.
You know where to find me, even if you need another two weeks to write a reply.
An interesting retreat. Shades of Sir Robin.
As it is, I disagree; I think we were about to get into more interesting matters. But then, I have learned that many will opt to flee at that point, rather than take the risk of becoming too engaged by the discussion.
Why do I get the feeling that despite your protestations, you’ll be back soon enough? Tuesday, perhaps?
Okay. Nobody will blame me for assuming that you ran away from this discussion. Should someone call you a coward, I wouldn’t disagree.
And you said you weren’t a typical Christian.
It is fortunate then that I am not, in the end, going to be judged by man’s standards. If you think it reasonable to expect that I should have produced a lengthy book after only the interval that has elapsed, please refrain from associating yourself with any viewpoint that claims to be…what’s the word?…rational.
Because you are not.
As it is, I’ve begun the work in earnest, and am working through the section on atheism at this moment. Granted, I am still doing so primarily by means of the iPod, being that I am first and foremost a husband and parent, and only a writer after those responsibilities have been discharged. My typing speed might be in excess of 80 words/minute on a laptop; on an iPod, that speed necessarily drops.
I am aiming for approximately fifty pages of researched response to the points you raised, plus a few others that come from other sources. This with perhaps no more than 1.5 hours/week to throw at the project. If that’s not fast enough for you, please take over paying my rent and bills, that I might devote the entirety of my working hours to the pursuit of this undertaking.
That…or continue to wait.
Besides…where could I even run to? We’re already on my home field, not in some third-party web forum that I can simply cease posting in or visiting. It’s rather irrational to suggest that I’ve run from anything anyhow, given that…well…I haven’t. I continue to blog, I continue to respond to you as you post new effusions, and I continue to work on my lengthy response to you. In what way (outside of your feverish imagination) have I run away?
Patience, dearie. And in the meantime, why not enjoy some of the other morsels I’ve been tossing out? Did you catch the article on the “problem” of evil that was posted just recently?
As to cowardice, do not use the term so lightly unless you would have it applied to yourself. Your pattern thus far has been to withdraw hastily when direct and potentially uncomfortable questions have been put to you. You disengaged when I asked you about your upbringing and whether it was possible that you are as “programmed” in your atheism as I apparently am in my theism (since, after all, atheism isn’t actually the default mode). You disengaged rather rapidly again, more recently, when I noted that I’d found your blog and asked you about Islamic demographics in your apparent home country (if your IP address and hostname are anything to go by).
And let’s not forget that I have answered every question of yours that has been published in this thread, while you have studiously avoided answering many of mine which would, I suspect, put you in a rather uncomfortable rhetorical position if you addressed them honestly.
Remember: I’m not the one actively refusing to answer questions. I am working on producing fully researched responses to questions put to me. I am, however, the one who is taking longer to do so than the one who is actually refusing to answer questions thinks it should take, which is kind of ironic if you think about it. And hypocritical as well, though not on my part.
So who indeed is the coward, and then the impatient one?
I very much doubt you’ve debated a Christian like myself, at any rate, if your blog is any indication. So, no, I don’t think I conform to your understanding of what a “typical” Christian is.
But then, if your blog is any indication, you have little enough clue what a Christian actually is.
Also: (singing) He just couldn’t staaaay awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
But go on, do tell me again how it’s ultimately me who is entirely obsessed with you, K-lite. Because I totally just keep pleading for you to return to let me bask in the light of your materialist reason for just one moment more, and all that jazz.
As your lengthy previous replies have proven (after your moderation) it’s obvious that you have the time for a reply.
So if you are going to be dishonest, at least be less obvious about it.
How about you post my reply here while we wait for your excuses to run out, then people can at least see what you are abusing your moderating powers to avoid answering? Or is this how attempt to you hold an edge in all your discussions?
It’s true, I came back. I’ll give you two reasons for this:
#1: It’s rude of you to prolong a discussion a month like this. If you don’t have time to manage your blog (which is an obvious falsehood) then give up on the discussion (and admit that you are not suited to defend your faith, too, if you feel like it).
#2: As it stands, I’m the winner of this discussion, but you have censored me (“for now”, as you claim). Apparently I care more about the idea of free speech than you do. Of course, those who are censored usually tend to care more about it than the censors.
Bonus: Cowardly behavior annoys me.
So man up and stop with the excuses already.
Time I could well be spending working on the book, right?
So why do you keep distracting me, exactly?
Oh, right…it gives you something to complain about.
Well, that and I don’t have to really research, source, proofread, and whatnot my replies in this comments thread. Or obey the standard rules of book page formatting. Which makes things easier.
No idea what you’re talking about.
Your response is out of the comments queue, though I retain the entirety of its text in the notification email that the blog generated for me. So no, it won’t be posted. It will get its own appendix section in the book, though.
Fred Penner FTW!
OCD and a lack of hobbies?
Given your own blog’s content, you’re hardly in a position to lecture anyone on what is and is not rude toward others. If the terms of the discussion are not to your liking, that’s just tough luck, isn’t it? It’s not your blog, and it’s not for you to demand changes in how it is operated, or in the modus operandi of its operator. The desired response will arrive in full, in due time…and I note, further, that it is not for you to set that time limit. It would be rude for you to attempt to do so.
Ah, but I’ve already stated that the response you are awaiting is no longer an issue of blog management; it is an issue of writing a properly sourced, edited, and formatted book. Sorry, but you’ll just have to wait.
I don’t see how that is, given that you’ve left a substantial number of things unaddressed, including several key questions about your own programming as an atheist (and related topics).
I don’t think you have the first clue what real censorship actually looks like, but I suppose repeating the word gives you something to whine about.
I’ve asked a couple of questions about this issue as well which you have studiously avoided answering, so there’s no way of knowing that either, is there?
As it is, my concern is to give your comments a proper hearing in a suitable medium, which this blog is not. A wider audience and a more researched response is warranted.
You’re such a martyr, aren’t you?
You must find mirrors annoying.
I’m still writing. Send me a cheque for the next few months worth of rent and utility fees and I’ll write more, and more often. Otherwise…I can only explain by saying: “shut up.”
Because in all honesty, that’s probably the most you could do to foster the expedient arrival of the response. Your comments in this thread merit a response (all atheist-authored comments do, given their inherent error), which necessarily means I’ve got to spend time writing a comment rather than writing a page of the book.
If you want to lecture people about rudeness, then, lecture yourself first, for being a constant source of distraction in this matter. Lecture yourself again for attempting to dictate the terms of this blog’s operation to its owner. Lecture yourself a third time for attempting to dictate the length of time a book you are not the publisher of should take to write.
And then, get away from the computer for a bit and enjoy the fall air.
“Time I could well be spending working on the book, right?”
“No idea what you’re talking about.”
You give excuses why you won’t publish my reply and why you won’t reply to it. Those excuses are built on your lack of time to do so. But this is a lie made obvious by the time spent on this tangent discussion. And you seem to have no trouble of making those replies lengthy.
“Given your own blog’s content, you’re hardly in a position to lecture anyone on what is and is not rude toward others”
What does any blog of mine (what?) have to do with you being rude? Are you saying you commonly let people wait a month for an answer? Are you saying that you expect people to pause in the middle of a discussion, remove your entries and then stubbornly refuse to continue *that* discussion while writing pages and pages of how hard they find book-writing is instead?
It’s one thing to have a heated discussion and throwing a bit of dirt around, it’s another one to retreat under false pretenses. Just count the excuses you have given for not answering questions even before you decided to hide behind book-writing.
Because clearly you weren’t writing a book when this discussion started, or how would you have had time to write replies *then*? I guess you don’t think much of that commandment about lying.
“The desired response will arrive in full, in due time…and I note, further, that it is not for you to set that time limit. It would be rude for you to attempt to do so.”
Given the delays and your previous unwillingness to answer questions, I have no reason to trust your word on this. Post my reply and I’ll be happy to endure your tardiness.
“I don’t see how that is, given that you’ve left a substantial number of things unaddressed, including several key questions about your own programming as an atheist (and related topics).”
Shall we perhaps go back to the beginning and see who left things unadressed first? But like I’ve said: when you are actually willing to continue the discussion instead of stalling I’ll be happy to fill in the perceived gaps.
“I don’t think you have the first clue what real censorship actually looks like, but I suppose repeating the word gives you something to whine about.”
If you look at it from my point of view (this is hard for Christians) you understand that I have two choices regarding this issue: going with what I can see (my reply is gone) or trusting your word (I don’t know you well enough to trust you, and indications point to that you might not be that trustworthy to begin with).
“As it is, my concern is to give your comments a proper hearing in a suitable medium, which this blog is not. A wider audience and a more researched response is warranted.”
I guess posting it here *too* would be a problem? Don’t be silly. Another poor excuse.
“You’re such a martyr, aren’t you?”
I sure feel like one. Good thing you like martyrs.
“You must find mirrors annoying.”
Wow. Just wow.
But anyways, I have shot down your excuses for not posting my reply, so I assume that you won’t have anything against helping you post it. Stay tuned for the next comment!
Correction: I give reasons why it won’t be published here, nor at this particular moment in time. That it will eventually be published is a certainty, and then in a forum with far more exposure (I hope). That it will be responded to it also a certainty.
Well, you tell me: if you had to choose between spending time satisfying the irrational demands of a bitter Swedish atheist and satisfying the needs and demands of your wife and child, which would you choose? Even from a purely selfish standpoint, it makes more sense to focus on one’s family — and the attendant joys and pleasures associated therewith — than on the bitter Swedish atheist. And since my motives are beyond the merely selfish, it only makes even more sense that you, K-Lite, would take something of a back seat to them.
You also take a back seat to my job, admittedly, for similar reasons.
Would I like more time to write? You bet I would! But I don’t have it, and that’s just the reality with which I (and you) must deal. If you don’t like it, I’ve already told you what you can do to help speed things along. Until and unless you do those things, you’ll just have to wait.
But you are also in luck: the company is sending me back to Wyoming for a week, next week; I should have time to devote to the book most evenings I am there. I am also being sent to the field (Wyoming, and also Utah) for the entirety of November, and the first half of December. There too, I will have time for writing in the evenings.
Does that make you happy to know?
Oh, yeah, because the fifteen minutes I spend responding to your irrational effusions really cuts in to my hours of research.
They’re long in a sense, but part of that is actually just how the site formats them. Translated to book pages, they lose a lot of their grandeur.
But as I’ve noted previously, your irrationality merits a corrective response. If you want me to stop wasting time in this tangential discussion, stop posting in it. Seems simple enough, no?
So are you not the Korinthian who used to blog at Sodahead?
Let’s see if you actually answer this question. It’s pretty straightforward, but I’ve noticed in the past that those sort of queries seem to give you trouble.
I’ve never decided to turn someone’s comment into fodder for a book before, so you are something of a precedent in this regard. But equally: so what?
What I like about this line of questioning of yours is that it flies boldly in the face of your earlier declaration that it’s me who is…desperate for this conversation to continue. In plain point of fact, I find this discussion to be enjoyable to some extent, though only insofar as it serves to get my brain going in the morning. Were it to dry up tonight, I wouldn’t worry overmuch, or at all.
But you? You’ve already declared me a coward, declared that I won’t complete the work, and declared yourself the de facto victor in this discourse? Yet you continue to return, rather than running to other quarters and crowing loudly about your manufactured triumph.
But go on, tell me how it’s me who’s really the desperate one.
I’ve already offered suggestions as to how you can help the process along. Feel free to take me up on any of them.
Or feel free to continue being a roadblock.
As I asked previously: to where can I go? Where can I retreat to? This is already my website…my home field.
The allegation of a retreat is false for other reasons. If I wanted to simply withdraw in shame, I’d close the comments on this post, ban you, and probably delete this discussion too. That I have not done any of these things is sufficient proof, I say, that my intention is not to retreat, but to continue to entertain you until such time as I have produced the work promised. And if that takes a few months yet, so be it…in the end, you seem to be the only person impatient for it to arrive, and one bitter Swedish atheist isn’t exactly a compelling reason for me to accelerate my progress.
Uh…that would be, like, zero, no? Up to the point that I didn’t post your one comment, I answered every statement that you made. I have also done so since then, and was pretty up-front about my desire to elevate your missing post’s visibility. Initially, I toyed with the idea of doing a series of long blog posts, but realized that it doevtailed nicely with a book idea I’d been entertaining for a few months. It got appropriated by that project, and there we are.
Since then, I have been fairly consistent in reminding you that my principal obstacle to completing the work is time.
Reams of excuses, as you can plainly see!
I think quite highly of it, and the book was an idea that predated this conversation. As noted previously, you provided a very convenient framework for the section pertaining to atheism, which I had been having some trouble frameworking previously.
As previously noted, your reply is out of the queue. I note that you’ve since re-submitted it, and I must applaud you for keeping backup copies of every comment you write (heck of a habit, that). So as not to tip my hat prematurely, I’m not going to publish the resubmission, which I realize will frustrate you even more.
But to be perfectly honest, I really don’t care if it frustrates you. You’re already “endur[ing] my tardiness,” whether I post your reply or not.
Sure. If you feel like losing a contest, go right ahead.
So why, exactly, are you continuing in this discussion, if you’ve nothing more to add to it until my response to your unposted comment has been published?
It’s not that I can’t see things from your point of view…it’s that I don’t care what your point of view is. Your point of view is not in line with the objective reality of the matter, and is therefore irrelevant.
Well, I could tip my hat, but what’d be the point of that?
I very much doubt you feel anything like a martyr, mostly because there’s absolutely no risk at all to your health, well-being, or life involved in this discussion.
Are you sure it’s not a whiner that you’re feeling like?
I know, I know…I’ll be here all week. Tip your waitress, and try the veal.
Yeah, I saw the next comment. Thanks for the re-post, but it was a waste of time posting it here. I’ve already committed to not releasing the comment until later. That fact, coupled with the fact that it will annoy the heck out of you, means that this re-submission will not be posted either.
As to shooting down my “excuses”…exactly how have you done so, again? You’ve barely said anything about them, apart from noting their existence.
I realize that saying “I don’t care” about the fact that not publishing the comment would annoy Korinthian isn’t exactly the most…ah…charitable approach, and I do feel a slight pang of regret for saying as much.
On the flip side, it’s only a slight pang, not a big one. If Korinthian had been able to resist the temptation to pre-emptively crown himself the victor in this debate, if he had been able to resist the temptation to crown me a liar and a coward, it might have been a bigger pang.
But it isn’t. And so it’s just a slight pang, and the comment will remain unpublished. I also have the feeling that by so refraining, there is a certain tactical advantage to be gained, since it’s not like I’m the one with an emotional investment in the matter.
You are quite good at debating this topic. Probably the best I’ve seen from your side of the argument. You’re certainly a better debater than I am, so I probably ought to keep my mouth shut. You actually raised some very good questions I’ll have to try to answer for/about myself, like, would I accept evidence if it were presented to me. I don’t know that I would accept what you consider evidence, but now I need to at least consider that my standards may not be fair. I was somewhat disappointed that you never seemed to want to define the evidentiary standard in your debate with Korinthian, instead asking him to define it and then telling him that his standard didn’t count because he couldn’t prove that it was the only possible standard worth using. That’s an impossible proof, so it’s irrelevant. What standard do you propose? I understand that it’s important to be sure you’re talking about roughly the same thing, but evidentiary standards can be debated after the evidence is presented.
Since Korinthian never answered certain questions, I’ll do it for him. Yes, children can be programmed atheist too (as well as Republican, Democrat, or even an Ohio State fan like I was). Parents don’t realize how much of what they do and say is absorbed by their children, and it’s very difficult to keep one’s own biases out of a child’s upbringing. Let’s face it, people think everything they believe is necessarily correct (or why would they believe it), and thus believe they have a moral imperative to pass it on to their children. Luckily, we all have the power to overcome our programming as we gain knowledge and (hopefully) wisdom. It is entirely possible that the bad things from my childhood pushed me in the direction of atheism (or at least agnosticism). I grew up in a household that was supposedly Christian (Church of Christ, then Lutheran after my mom died when I was 10), but I had an abusive alcoholic father. As a child, I would pray for the abuse to stop. Years later, when I discovered that the Bible says if a believer asks for something in Jesus’s name he WILL receive it (no equivocation that I could find), I had a hard time justifying my faith given that my prayers weren’t answered. As an adult, I came to the realization that the God of the Bible wasn’t real, but it’s possible my childhood experience was a contributing factor.
The “bad things happen to good people” argument isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) used as an argument against God, but rather as an argument against one of the traits attributed to God by his followers… that he is benevolent. The “things seem to run fine without God” argument is really just a plea to avoid adding unnecessary elements to the equation. We know that 1 + 1 = 2. It would be unnecessary to say “1 + 1 = 2 because God made it so”. The God element in that statement is not required, and therefore should not be added.
Miracles are a tricky issue, largely because the term is so mis- and over-used these days to describe everyday natural occurences like childbirth. And also because our senses are so easy to deceive. I once saw Criss Angel pull a woman apart at the waist. The bottom half stood up, and the top half crawled away screaming. Should I believe that Criss actually pulled a woman in half, or does it make more sense to believe that there was some other explanation? I would expect a true miracle to be the main topic of every news source in the world for an absurdly long period of time.
Perhaps you can help me out with something that has confounded me for years. How is it that every Christian seems to have a different definition or understanding of God and Christianity? If there’s one God, shouldn’t everyone who truly believes (not your Christmas and Easter believers, but the real deal) have the exact same beliefs? And how do we tell the difference between parable and stone cold truth in the Bible? In my experience, once something is proven inaccurate (like Genesis 1-11) it is labeled a parable or metaphor, while equally extraordinary things that can’t necessarily be disproved (like the virgin birth or the resurrection) are not.
BTW, both LOLcats and Zombie Jesus are hilarious, but that could just be because I love all things zombie or cat.
BTBTW, Dawkins and Hitchens are bullies. Funny sometimes, but not overly intellectual. I expect my intellectuals to be considerably more intelligent than I am. Their books are disappointing in their lack of detailed explanations in the same way that apologist books are. They all (both sides) claim to be able to prove or disprove something, but then never even TRY to accomplish that goal. I’m sad that they and Bill Maher are the face of atheism these days. I’d much rather it be someone like Matt Dillahunty from The Atheist Experience TV show in Austin, TX (hundreds of clips on YouTube, in case you haven’t seen him).
Thank you kindly, but I shudder to think of what examples of “my side of the argument” you have been witness too, then; I could name perhaps a dozen people off the top of my head, some of whom I know from having met personally, who would be hear, shoulders, and torso above me in this debate, in terms of their ability to argue for Christianity.
I can hold my own, I suppose, though it helps when the other side fields their B team.
But where’s the fun in that?
Well, that’s cool. And in a way, it’s made my day. Not that I expect your worldview will come crumbling down, but one doesn’t usually expect to effect even this sort of small change in a person by writing something on the Internet.
That is because the point was not to establish the standard proper. Sorry if it seemed that way, but the intent was to ridicule strict empiricism as self-defeating. Ultimately, I never got to the point where I could do more than imply as much, because Korinthian declined to respond.
I don’t, actually. The point, again, is to demonstrate that strict empiricism — to which many atheists cling — is ultimately a self-contradicting standard; it is self-defeating.
Not to seem rude, but this sounds like another attempt to set up mobile goalposts.
I agree with the first part, and should note that it articulates something close to the point I was driving toward. I admit that I expected Korinthian to answer in the negative, and to proclaim that his atheism is a freeing from the shackles of childhood programming…which would of course not be true even if he was raised in a religious household.
This is because it is not just children who can become programmed; adults are similarly vulnerable, in certain circumstances. I’ve known too many people who’ve abandoned their faith for “reason” (read: atheism, which is not the same thing) in the wake of some terrible personal tragedy…this in spite of the fact that Christ promises us, His followers, that our lives will know tragedy, in spite of His promise of salvation. I’m not sure why my acquaintances consider it “rational” to have abandoned a faith for living up to some of its tenets…but I suspect that the tragedies suffered left each of them vulnerable to suggestion and errant thinking.
Or to programming, as Korinthian has put it.
To your last point, I agree with reservation; I think parents should take care as to what they allow of themselves to imprint on the child. It does not necessarily follow, however, that this restraint should be total.
That might be the case for most, but a guy like me can honestly admit that what beliefs he personally holds might not necessarily be correct. In fact, I will go one further and admit that to the degree that they deviate from the articulated, documented teachings and doctrines of the Church (and there are deviations), my beliefs are incorrect.
In which case, it is my moral imperative to pass on to my child the truthful teachings, rather than my personal permutations thereof. But to the degree that I am correct in the faith I profess, it is my duty to pass on those correct teachings as well.
This gets us back to what I said just previously; a parent should refrain from passing some things on to his children, to the degree that he holds to wrong or incorrect things.
It is at times a lucky thing, and at times not. Man’s reason is fallen, and while it more or less works most of the time, it can easily lead man astray, or be led astray itself. We do have the ability to overcome our programming, but we need to ask the additional question of whether our programming needs to be overcome. If we’ve managed to come into adult life having absorbed an entirely correct set of beliefs and teachings from our family and friends, there’s really no need to strive to break out of that framework…and to do so would, in fact, be a grave error.
(This leaves open the question of whether an entirely correct set of beliefs and teachings exists, of course, and also leaves unspoken the point that it is still good to test the boundaries of correct teachings, if only to discover (or re-discover) their inherent rightness.)
I realized I’m interjecting here before your point is complete, but it’s worth noting that there is apparently some level of statistical correlation between “daddy issues” (or, more broadly, parental authority issues) in childhood and atheism in adulthood.
I could ramble on at some length about the dangers of personal Biblical interpretation, as this is a prime example. Instead, I will merely note that while there’s no equivocation in that teaching cited per sé, it is a broader teaching than simply the promise that every question will be rewarded with the requested answer.
In particular, one notes that the foremost articulation of “ask and ye shall receive” is followed up with the observation that ” If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” What this ultimately means is that in the tension between what we ask for and what we need (since we humans, being fallen and imperfect, do not necessarily always know what we truly need, and so do not ask for it), God will come down on the side of addressing the need, not the want.
I realize that the easy assumption is to assume that I’m asserting that living in abuse was what you needed to be doing; I am not so asserting. But do I suppose, for one moment, that some plan for good was not at work in the circumstance you describe? No, not for one moment.
I’d say so, and will again refrain from a tangential rant about the dangers of radical private interpretation of Scripture. I do find it interesting that you attribute your present lack of faith, in part, to a child’s interpretation of a complex theological teaching; given that said interpretation was almost certainly in error in some way, that would rather mean that your subsequent atheism is ultimately built on a foundation of sand or straw, rather than concrete.
You say you came to the realization that the God of the Bible “wasn’t real.” I would be interested to hear of how this realization took place, and what informed it, in more detail. There’s a certainty in the word choice that I find most curious, in that I wonder what prompts it — certainly, it does not derive from weight of (empirical) evidence.
Two points.
Firstly, if you can argue against the existence of a benevolent God, you can argue that the Christian God does not exist.
Or, you could try to do so, but it would still not be a rational argument. This is because, secondly, the argument that the existence of suffering or evil precludes a benevolent God still makes the error of not differentiating between action and the capacity for action; it does not differentiate between being able to do X and actually doing X. A benevolent being can still allow for evil and suffering to exist, if to do so is to the greater benefit of…well…us.
As a parent, I can say I know as much; it would actually be to be one year old’s detriment if I took pains to prevent her from ever coming to injury, no matter how slight. What I mean by that is that obviously it is my duty to protect her from serious harm. By the same token, it is also my duty to allow her the risk of the occasional bopped nose or faceplant — she wouldn’t learn to walk properly if I constantly held her up and supported her every movement. In a few years, when she’s learning to ride a bike, it will be my duty to prevent her from coming to serious harm, by teaching her about how to safely ride her bicycle in situations where automobile traffic is present. It will also, however, be my duty to let her take the risk of the occasional skinned knee, or even a broken wrist…as it will one day be my duty to let go of the bike seat, to let her ride using only her own balance.
That’s a “micro” example, effected in the lives of imperfect and fallen human beings. It stands to reason, however, that in the perfect existence of the divine, the “macro” of that example also exists; some evil and some suffering are necessary parts of the human experience, because we — and others around us — cannot grow without them.
And just as I, the parent, more or less have the ability to prevent most harm from coming to my daughter (though only by essentially condemning her to life in a bubble), so too does God have the ability to prevent us from ever coming to suffering or being set upon by evil. And unlike myself, God’s capacity to do so is both unlimited and perfect.
But there is, of course, a difference between possessing a capacity and acting upon it. I could keep Ella in a bubble, but that would do more harm than good. God could likewise keep us in an essentially perfect state of existence…but I suspect the result would be equally ruinous to us as my bubble-fication of Ella would be to her.
There’s one further error that is made in the “argument from evil/suffering,” which is to assume that God is the lord of this world. But unless you’re intimately familiar with the full implications of Jesus’ temptation in the desert, that’s not a discussion we should verge into.
I get that…but the question that has not been settled is whether God is an unnecessary element in the equation, or whether God is not still present in the equation even if we don’t necessarily see the need to mention Him directly. This argument speaks from the standpoint of human reason, which is necessarily fallen and flawed; how do we know that we are correct in thinking that there is no “need” to include God in the equation?
You’re building a ton of assumptions into that statement concerning the necessity of God. To be fair, I don’t see the need to attach divine attribution to the end of answers submitted on math exams…but that doesn’t mean that the piece of the order of the Universe governing what results when 1 and 1 are added was not defined by the Creator.
In other words, my stance is both/and on the matter: I’m fine with just noting that 1+1=2, but if asked I will confess in no uncertain terms that this order was set in place by the Almighty.
You’d think so, but I think you’re far too charitable in your assumption of what the various media outlets of the world would see fit to report. The Catholic school in my wife’s home town is lucky if it can get the local newspaper to run a classified add for it, but the public school can get full-page spreads announcing its events. Media systems, being one more human creation, are necessarily imperfect, and are vulnerable to bias. And while a miracle might be a newsworthy event from a strictly objective standpoint, if reporting on it doesn’t fit a pre-conceived narrative bias, it will go unreported.
As to the Criss Angel remark, this is an interesting (but still tired) re-hashing of the “mass delusion/mass illusion” argument that has been deployed in the past to no great effect. 70,000 people from all walks of life, dozens of different countries and several different belief systems all seeing the same miraculous dancing of the Sun is a far different thing than some optical effects making it look like a woman has just been sliced in half. Also different from said sliced woman is a nun suddenly cured of a well-documented, medically-attested case of advanced Parkinson’s disease…this after seeking the intercession of John Paul II.
The logic you’re using here is the same logic as that of the recent “debunkers” of the Shroud of Turin, whose basic argument seems to be that because they were able to produce a forgery of the Shroud, the Shroud itself must be a forgery as well. I will grant that our senses can be fooled, a fact which different people exploit to different purposes. But equally, the fact that our senses can be fooled does not mean that every single instance of witnessing something profound and apparently supernatural is necessarily an illusion wrought by a human actor only.
I’ve often lamented that the divisions we Christians presently suffer have the negative effect you give voice to above: who, indeed, should trust us and the message of salvation we carry, if we cannot even agree on lunch, let alone on the proper recognition owed to the Blessed Virgin?
But humans are sinful, especially prideful, and Jesus predicted that division and strife would afflict Christians. Heresies and schisms are no new thing to the Church, regrettable though they may be. All these differences truly mean is that some Christians are in error, while others are not. That’s the human condition, and the risk God took in using human beings to spread and give voice to the message of salvation that is faith in His Son.
In a sense, it all comes down to a single hermeneutical rule: truth does not contradict truth. Scripture and science are both complex things, requiring interpretation by suitable authorities (I could insert another rant about private interpretation here). Both are also, in their own ways, living things, ever-changing in response to learning and avenues of inquiry.
Truth does not contradict truth: if there is an apparent conflict between an interpretation of Scripture and a theory or postulation of science, then the problem is not with the science or the Scripture, but with our understanding of one or both. If we have to re-think one or both in light of this revelation, then so be it.
As to how we can go about discerning what parts of Scripture are meant more as metaphor than as e.g. historical accounts, there are many means of literary analysis which can be (and are) brought to bear. There are also means of theological analysis which can be brought to bear, to achieve the same end. I’ve no time to expound upon these matters here, as they are beyond the level of complexity of this discussion. If you would learn more, I can offer some recommended reading material.
I’ve actually never gotten into zombies in general, either as objects of humour or staples of horror movies. But I love cats.
I could go on at some length about how I wish the public faces of Christianity were, in many cases, different faces; if nobody ever mentioned Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort again, or the Institute for Creation Research (or whatever “ICR” stands for), I wouldn’t be upset at all. Religion (or lack thereof) does not prevent idiots from being…well…idiots, nor does it prevent vocal idiots from being vocal idiots. At least, not in all cases; the Christian exhortation to humility has hopefully muffled a few fools along the way.