Hitchens and dawkins, etc

[Planty_Business]

I’m sorry - why are we talking about these people on a philosophy forum? Is philosophy not “love of wisdom”?

It’s statements like these that make me think the claim that atheists are the arrogant ones is a load of hogwash. If you’re going to insult people, provide reasons for doing so. When you don’t, you end up looking like the millions of other theists who pick on Dawkins and Hitchens.

As for the OP, I disagree that “no evidence” is their only argument. For example, Hitchens addresses the problem of inconsistencies within the Bible, specifically regarding morality. The writers of the Bible claimed that Yahweh is a just God, yet some of the central tenets of Christianity – that every human has inherited a sinful nature from Adam and Eve, or that the price of sins can be paid by a vicarious sacrifice of an innocent person/god – are contrary to justice.

Regarding the second point made in the OP, the claim isn’t that faithful people do evil things, ergo faith is evil. Rather, the claim is that the evil things that faithful people do are often consistent with their faiths, ergo faith is evil. Or at least it is a catalyst for evil. For instance, saints Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More both advocated the killing of heretics, and this belief was consistent with the teachings of the Bible; “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away” could be interpreted to mean that lives can be disposed of for the good of the Church. After all, the Church is a “body” of Christ, right?

Incidentally, while we’re on the topic of atheists whom Christians find arrogant, I often find that the most arrogant and least civil people in debates about the existence of God, etc. are theists (not all, but some). William Lane Craig, for example. He is so bigoted that, when asked in one debate by a student if the student’s revelation by God about homosexuality being acceptable was reliable, he laughed at the student without even considering the implications of the question regarding some theists’ willingness to only pay attention to “divine revelations” that support their theology, prejudiced though it may be.

 

[Pieman333272]

It’s statements like these that make me think the claim that atheists are the arrogant ones is a load of hogwash. If you’re going to insult people, provide reasons for doing so. When you don’t, you end up looking like the millions of other theists who pick on Dawkins and Hitchens.

I was cracking a joke. If I were in a serious debate I wouldn’t say something like that. Sheesh.

As for the OP, I disagree that “no evidence” is their only argument. For example, Hitchens addresses the problem of inconsistencies within the Bible, specifically regarding morality. The writers of the Bible claimed that Yahweh is a just God, yet some of the central tenets of Christianity – that every human has inherited a sinful nature from Adam and Eve

Think about it. It was an infinite offence against God and they received punishment (JUSTICE). Besides, if you look at it from some theological views, in the LONG RUN it was better for humanity.

or that the price of sins can be paid by a vicarious sacrifice of an innocent person/god – are contrary to justice.

That’s a protestant idea, Jesus’ death was rather a demonstration of God’s love for us. God never demanded sacrifice, he had his Son die so we had proof of his love.

Rather, the claim is that the evil things that faithful people do are often consistent with their faiths, ergo faith is evil.

OK, that originates from an inability to contextualize. Many of the “Barbaric” ideas in ancient Christianity are carryovers from Pagan culture. In addition, this can be reversed much worse than the other on atheism.

For instance, saints Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More both advocated the killing of heretics, and this belief was consistent with the teachings of the Bible; “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away” could be interpreted to mean that lives can be disposed of for the good of the Church. After all, the Church is a “body” of Christ, right?

That’s an example of misinterpretation. If you truly and honestly interpret the faith, you will see ideas such as these are not possibly what was meant. What was meant was a PERSONAL struggle, saying that one should do all possible to avoid PERSONAL sin.

Incidentally, while we’re on the topic of atheists whom Christians find arrogant, I often find that the most arrogant and least civil people in debates about the existence of God, etc. are theists (not all, but some). William Lane Craig, for example. He is so bigoted that, when asked in one debate by a student if the student’s revelation by God about homosexuality being acceptable was reliable, he laughed at the student without even considering the implications of the question regarding some theists’ willingness to only pay attention to “divine revelations” that support their theology, prejudiced though it may be.

Can you give me a source for this? It looks like some anti-Craig ad hom’s you find on the internet, most of which are just plain fabricated to “take him down”. All it is for now is a naked assertion.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I’m not sure why you’re so rankled. I’m just trying to rationally examine your claim here - why get so squirmy?

Because you’ve layered insult upon insult. That’s why.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Okay, so you’ve decided to ignore my point and to avoid discussing that which you claimed to be open to discussing. That’s open-minded of you.

That strikes me as dishonest and hypocritical. If you can’t respond to a logical point with anything but ad hominem nonsense like this then you really are no better than many of the theists around here - so I guess you win! We are all the same!

More insults.

Dishonest

Hypocritical

rolleyes

“That’s open-minded of you”

 

[Jocko_VT]

I hope you don’t mind my asking, but do you have any idea what “hermeneutically complicated” means? I had assumed that you did, but maybe I was wrong?

I don’t mind you asking. But what’s the point in answering? You opted not to answer my question.

You’re always getting upset about ‘insults’ before making a credible attempt to establish the truth or falsity of said ‘insults.’ That’s a no-no. It’s called begging the question (again: common behaviour around here).

That you can used “That’s a no no” and seriously ask me to prove that you’re being insulting is itself insulting, twice!!

I suppose I have, in a sense different from the one I originally intended. Very perceptive of you (although it was rather dishonest of you to ignore my point).

More insults.

Be that (or be that not) as it may, it seems not very responsible to address claims made in this thread in some other thread.

But the claims you referred to in your quotation were what we were just discussing in another thread, and they were not the topic at hand in this thread.

Bicker bicker bicker. If you want a real dialogue, I’m happy to provide it. All you want to do is bicker, though.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Originally Posted by Jocko_VT View Post
The point, to me, is just to say that atheists aren’t bad people–we’re moral people just like theists–and religious people are not better.

This is what you said. I hadn’t addressed this topic in this thread. I merely made this statement, and just today, in response to the only other person I’ve seen in this thread who is actually discussing the OP’s original topic. I did address it in another thread. In addressing it in the other thread, I was neither simplistic nor dogmatic. If you think Dawkins and Hitchens were simplistic and dogmatic in addressing the morality of theists and atheists, then let me know how. I’ll talk about that. I tried to talk about this topic in the other thread, but we just kept going around in circles and you told me that I didn’t actually understand the material I was covering.

So what on earth do you want?!?!

 

[Planty_Business]

I was cracking a joke. If I were in a serious debate I wouldn’t say something like that. Sheesh.

Duly noted.

Think about it. It was an infinite offence against God and they received punishment (JUSTICE). Besides, if you look at it from some theological views, in the LONG RUN it was better for humanity.

I can’t see how any one sin can be “infinitely” offensive to God. If your God is so petty that he will punish the descendants of someone for that person’s minor sin, I can’t see any reason to call him just, let alone praiseworthy.

That’s a protestant idea, Jesus’ death was rather a demonstration of God’s love for us. God never demanded sacrifice, he had his Son die so we had proof of his love.

Proof, you say? Sure, for the people who may have witnessed the event. But what about the rest of us, who are left with evidence for said event that is, at best, pitiful, and at worst, nonexistent? This is the problem I have with Christianity; Jesus seems to think that believing in something without direct evidence for it is something that makes you worthy of being “blessed”, according to the whole doubting Thomas story. Still, if you have evidence for the Resurrection, I’m all ears, but I don’t want the thread to derail.

OK, that originates from an inability to contextualize. Many of the “Barbaric” ideas in ancient Christianity are carryovers from Pagan culture. In addition, this can be reversed much worse than the other on atheism.

I’m impressed that you acknowledge that fact that your religion’s holy book is partly influenced by other, older religions. The evidence seems to indicate that this is the case for many aspects of Christianity, not the least of which is the story of Jesus’s life. Ever heard of Horus, Dionysus, or Osiris? Perhaps you should verify that you yourself are not lacking in the ability to contextualize. A proper understanding of the context of the writing of the Bible is very telling, to the point where no one who has such an understanding can believe that the book is God’s word.

I do confess that I am not actually formally educated in that respect, but I have received such information from credible sources.

That’s an example of misinterpretation. If you truly and honestly interpret the faith, you will see ideas such as these are not possibly what was meant. What was meant was a PERSONAL struggle, saying that one should do all possible to avoid PERSONAL sin.

Truly and honestly, eh? Were the two St. Thomases I mentioned “truly and honestly” interpreting the faith? If not, why are they considered saints? For that matter, how does one know if he is “truly and honestly” interpreting the faith? You make it sound easy. The 30,000+ sects of Protestant Christianity beg to differ.

Can you give me a source for this? It looks like some anti-Craig ad hom’s you find on the internet, most of which are just plain fabricated to “take him down”. All it is for now is a naked assertion.

Certainly; just look up Craig’s debate with Sam Harris on YouTube. It’s in the Q&A section of the debate. Frankly, I’m surprised that no one called him out on such an insensitive remark.

Incidentally, I recommend you think about whether your own sources for the evidence of the Resurrection – if you do present any – are nothing more than the hearsay you believe my source to be. Also, if you are interested in actually seeing someone exercising some intellectual honesty while “taking Craig down”, a YouTube user named antybu86 is adept at this. Not to mention Craig’s opponents in debates.

 

[Betterave]

More insults.

Dishonest

Hypocritical

rolleyes

“That’s open-minded of you”

How does any of that constitute ‘insults’?? Care to actually explain this instead of repeatedly making these lame accusations?

 

[Betterave]

I don’t mind you asking. But what’s the point in answering? You opted not to answer my question.

The point in answering is to help me to make an appropriate answer to your question, one that you’ll understand.

That you can used “That’s a no no” and seriously ask me to prove that you’re being insulting is itself insulting, twice!!

Huh? That made no sense.

More insults.

LOL! Again: How does any of that constitute ‘insults’?? Care to actually explain this instead of repeatedly making these lame accusations?

But the claims you referred to in your quotation were what we were just discussing in another thread, and they were not the topic at hand in this thread.

So what? You inserted those comments in this thread.

Bicker bicker bicker. If you want a real dialogue, I’m happy to provide it. All you want to do is bicker, though.

Can you seriously not see any hypocrisy/dishonesty in this statement??

 

[Betterave]

This is what you said. I hadn’t addressed this topic in this thread. I merely made this statement, and just today, in response to the only other person I’ve seen in this thread who is actually discussing the OP’s original topic. I did address it in another thread. In addressing it in the other thread, I was neither simplistic nor dogmatic. If you think Dawkins and Hitchens were simplistic and dogmatic in addressing the morality of theists and atheists, then let me know how. I’ll talk about that. I tried to talk about this topic in the other thread, but we just kept going around in circles and you told me that I didn’t actually understand the material I was covering.

So what on earth do you want?!?!

What on earth do I want? I want you to understand that my comments are addressed to your comments as they have been stated and contextualized in this thread, not to comments that I haven’t seen. I also want you to understand that your constantly dismissing my objections to your views as insults or as bickering is ridiculous. I want you to understand that when I post here it is in the hopes that you (or whoever) will respond to the substance of what I say, instead of resting content with ad hominem histrionics. I want to not need to point out that I want stuff like this. Etc.

By the way: in that other thread you simply made some assertions and refused to defend them in any kind of respectful/reasonable/honest way. If there was any circling, you were to blame.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t mind you asking. But what’s the point in answering? You opted not to answer my question.

That you can used “That’s a no no” and seriously ask me to prove that you’re being insulting is itself insulting, twice!!

More insults.

But the claims you referred to in your quotation were what we were just discussing in another thread, and they were not the topic at hand in this thread.

Bicker bicker bicker. If you want a real dialogue, I’m happy to provide it. All you want to do is bicker, though.

Jocko:

For a while there, I was almost convinced by you that you came to this forum in good faith. Now I see that that was wrong and my first impression of you was actually correct. What you are doing is an interesting ploy: engage theists in nonsensical argument, then, call them out as being ‘insulting’. The fact of the matter is: you have been the one who has been insulting, albeit very coyly.

It is a rather interesting type of debate style - one that I’ve seen before - and you’re pretty good at it. So, it is not the Truth that you seek: it is no more nor less than the creation of doubt amongst those that would debate with you in earnest. It is not, ‘real dialogue’ you are after is it?

Very clever. We’ve seen this ploy before - but, it has been a while. But now you are, as they say, “duck soup.”

God bless,
jd

 

[Betterave]

I can’t see how any one sin can be “infinitely” offensive to God. If your God is so petty that he will punish the descendants of someone for that person’s minor sin, I can’t see any reason to call him just, let alone praiseworthy.

That’s okay that you can’t see that: it doesn’t make sense and it’s not part of our religious doctrine. As for Hitchens’ argument for the ‘injustice’ of the inheritance of original sin, how does that go exactly?

Proof, you say? Sure, for the people who may have witnessed the event. But what about the rest of us, who are left with evidence for said event that is, at best, pitiful, and at worst, nonexistent? This is the problem I have with Christianity; Jesus seems to think that believing in something without direct evidence for it is something that makes you worthy of being “blessed”, according to the whole doubting Thomas story.

And why, do you suppose, does Jesus think that? And why do you disagree with him?

I’m impressed that you acknowledge that fact that your religion’s holy book is partly influenced by other, older religions. The evidence seems to indicate that this is the case for many aspects of Christianity, not the least of which is the story of Jesus’s life. Ever heard of Horus, Dionysus, or Osiris? Perhaps you should verify that you yourself are not lacking in the ability to contextualize. A proper understanding of the context of the writing of the Bible is very telling, to the point where no one who has such an understanding can believe that the book is God’s word.

That’s a recklessly ambitious claim, I’d say, one which I highly doubt you will make any kind of responsible effort to substantiate here… but I’m always happy to be surprised!

I do confess that I am not actually formally educated in that respect, but I have received such information from credible sources.

Credible sources? Okay then: if you say so!

Truly and honestly, eh? Were the two St. Thomases I mentioned “truly and honestly” interpreting the faith? If not, why are they considered saints? For that matter, how does one know if he is “truly and honestly” interpreting the faith? You make it sound easy. The 30,000+ sects of Protestant Christianity beg to differ.

Of course the Thomases you mentioned were truly and honestly interpreting the faith. It does not follow from the fact that someone is a saint, however, that everything they say constitutes an ever-after bindingly true interpretation of the faith. Saints who lived 700 years ago really lived 700 years ago, and you obviously have to understand what they say within a 700-years-ago context.

 

[Betterave]

This is what you said. I hadn’t addressed this topic in this thread. I merely made this statement, and just today, in response to the only other person I’ve seen in this thread who is actually discussing the OP’s original topic. I did address it in another thread. In addressing it in the other thread, I was neither simplistic nor dogmatic.

If you seriously want to defend the claim that you have addressed this issue in a responsible way somewhere, I’d appreciate you referring me to where you have done so.

 

[levinas12]

One can not use the big bang as evidence of a beginning of the universe, because the big bang is not evidence of a beginning of the universe in the intuitive sense–i.e., “beginning” has no real meaning when dealing with the beginning of the big bang because time didn’t exist until the big bang. However, this doesn’t mean there was nothingness before that point. Thus, no arguments, theistic or atheistic, can be based on the big bang.

But why was Einstein upset about the Big Bang Theory (BBT)? I don’t think he was worried about whether a beginning of time was a logically coherent concept. It was more because the BBT smacked of Genesis. And this was the thinking of a bunch of other physicists, including Fred Hoyle who contemptuously coined the phrase “Big Bang”.

This bias wasn’t confined, however, to the old school of 20th century physicists. Stephen Hawking himself admits that the fine-tuning of the Big Bang caused him some grief. Until finally, after a number of years, he believed he had found a way around it.

So it’s not surprising that some posters on this forum think that the Big Bang is evidence of a beginning, and additionally, evidence of a Creator.

 

[Planty_Business]

That’s okay that you can’t see that: it doesn’t make sense and it’s not part of our religious doctrine. As for Hitchens’ argument for the ‘injustice’ of the inheritance of original sin, how does that go exactly?

Uh, yes it is. Unless Pieman is tricking me here.

And I think the injustice of original sin is pretty obvious. If Adam and Eve had the chance to make their choice – obeying God out of love of him, or disobeying him and giving into temptation by the devil – why do we not get the same choice? That is to say, why do we not start out our lives as innocent as they did, with the free choice of paradise without any hardship whatsoever? Then again, I personally value knowledge of good and evil, so I can’t imagine why God supposedly discouraged eating from a tree that would give such knowledge. Perhaps the Catholics who say the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin was a good thing (Pieman, apparently) are onto something.

But I digress. Inherited guilt is not justice in any sense of the word, simple as that. Especially when such a doctrine of inherited guilt raises theological dilemmas regarding aborted children’s fate, but that’s a topic for a different thread.

And why, do you suppose, does Jesus think that? And why do you disagree with him?

Are you asking why I think that is Jesus’s message in the story, or are you asking me what Jesus’s reasoning behind this message probably was? I can’t really answer the latter, as I think there is none beyond an attempt to somehow make the unfalsifiability of Christian claims a good thing. The former is pretty self-explanatory; it’s as obvious to see that that is the message of the story as it is to see that the message of the story of Abraham’s attempted child sacrifice is “Even when God seems to be asking you to do things that make no sense to you, do as he commands anyway, for you will be rewarded for your faith.”

I disagree with Jesus here because I value evidence, of course. I don’t think that faith is a virtue, at least according to the Hebrews 11:1-2 definition of faith.

That’s a recklessly ambitious claim, I’d say, one which I highly doubt you will make any kind of responsible effort to substantiate here… but I’m always happy to be surprised!

Archaeologists (sp?) and Biblical scholars can confirm this. Interestingly, Justin Martyr’s writings even acknowledge the similarities between the story of Jesus and the pagan myths of “the sons of Jupiter”. I recommend “The Hidden Story of Jesus”, which, strangely enough, involves a historical journey made by a Christian; these aren’t just fringe groups
of atheists who have an agenda against the historicity of Christianity, even several Christian scholars agree that many suspicious similarities between the Gospels and myths that predate them exist.

I do agree that it is recklessly ambitious of me, yes. I have not yet received a college education in matters of higher criticism of the Bible, nor do I intend to. I honestly can’t be bothered to waste my life confirmed what I already know based on what educated people have told me. Call it faith if you (undoubtedly) will, but I call it having justified trust in people more knowledgeable than me.

Credible sources? Okay then: if you say so!

Karen Armstrong comes to mind. I can’t recall the names of the authors of The Bible With Sources Revealed or Who Wrote the New Testament. Suffice it to say I have reason to think that the Documentary Hypothesis is a sound one. The independent sources of evidence for it are not unlike those that support the theory of evolution.

Of course the Thomases you mentioned were truly and honestly interpreting the faith. It does not follow from the fact that someone is a saint, however, that everything they say constitutes an ever-after bindingly true interpretation of the faith. Saints who lived 700 years ago really lived 700 years ago, and you obviously have to understand what they say within a 700-years-ago context.

This makes sense, but I do find it odd that the Catholic Church claims absolute knowledge of certain doctrines, yet it can’t even sort out morality sufficiently. Even today, the Pope seems to think that condoms are worse than AIDS. But then, that may just be Hitchens misleading me.

 

[Betterave]

Uh, yes it is. Unless Pieman is tricking me here.

Uh, no it isn’t (and to clarify: I’m referring to the claim that a sin can be infinitely offensive to God). Do you think it is because you regard Pieman as a “credible source”? General observation: it seems you need to think more carefully about what makes for a credible source. I’ll address the rest of your post later.

Btw, I noticed you’re new here, so welcome.

 

[levinas12]

But why was Einstein upset about the Big Bang Theory (BBT)? I don’t think he was worried about whether a beginning of time was a logically coherent concept. It was more because the BBT smacked of Genesis. And this was the thinking of a bunch of other physicists, including Fred Hoyle who contemptuously coined the phrase “Big Bang”.

This bias wasn’t confined, however, to the old school of 20th century physicists. Stephen Hawking himself admits that the fine-tuning of the Big Bang caused him some grief. Until finally, after a number of years, he believed he had found a way around it.

So it’s not surprising that some posters on this forum think that the Big Bang is evidence of a beginning, and additionally, evidence of a Creator.

Just a followup. The problem with a beginning for time was raised by Kant (see the amphiboly about time in the Critique of Pure Reason). Not that Kant took a position either for a beginning or against a beginning. In fact, he argued both positions to show that time cannot be a transcendent “outside” fact, something true of the “noumena”, of things as they are in themselves. If you make that move, then you will get involved in “amphibolies” or aporias. According to Kant, time belonged only to the constitution of human consciousness and thus to the structure of “phenomena” or things as they appear to us.

But this “relativity of time” to human consciousness was not Einstein’s “relativity of time”. Time was a transcendent “outside” fact for Einstein. He did not subscribe to the Kantian distinction between phenomena and noumena.

 

[tonyrey]

1. In a Godless universe everything is produced by inanimate, irrational particles.

Then there is no reason for believing it to be true!

Irrational? Depends on what you mean. It seems there are certain laws by which particles behave, at least on certain levels. If this is true, does this count as irrational? And, if something animate comes out of the inanimate mix, is that animate matter necessarily incapable of being rational, at least on some level–a bounded rationality?

I am using the term in its primary sense of lacking the power of reason.

1. Neither truths nor rational thought can be produced by inanimate, irrational particles.
   If there are laws, are those not truths? If animate matter emerges out of the inanimate, why could it not realize certain truths, at least bounded truths applicable to their immediate experience?

Because there is no evidence that it has any insight.

3. Therefore no rational conclusions are possible.

Not universally, perhaps. I don’t think human reason and rationality are universal, though, so this is not a problem for me. With in a certain environment, rational conclusions would still be possible. Of course, this assumes “rational” means something beyond how we define it. “Rational” could just be a way humans think about the environment, rather than being an actual characteristic of the environment.

I agree with you but then you have the problem of how it originated.

4. Therefore the theory that everything is produced by inanimate, irrational particles is self-destructive.

Even if your premises were correct, I don’t see how you get to this conclusion. If, say, the laws of physics are such that they may lead to certain outcomes, and those outcomes are themselves not inanimate, and are capable of reason, at least a bounded sort of reason applicable to their immediate experience, then how is this self-destructive?

The outcomes need have no relation to reality. Why should heat, light and sound produce outcomes which give understanding? The power of reason presupposes insight from without! The alternative is to assume matter is conscious without any evidence that it is!

 

[Jocko_VT]

If you seriously want to defend the claim that you have addressed this issue in a responsible way somewhere, I’d appreciate you referring me to where you have done so.

The other thread!! We were just there yesterday.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Then there is no reason for believing it to be true!

This doesn’t follow.

I am using the term in its primary sense of lacking the power of reason.

Then, since humans reason, and they came out of the inanimate mix, I’d have to say you’re wrong. Of course, your premise is what’s in question.

Because there is no evidence that it has any insight.

The animate matter? Humans have insight.

I agree with you but then you have the problem of how it originated.

Now you’re moving beyond your original argument. I understand that this is what you meant, but it’s not what you said. What you’re really arguing is the same thing that everyone always argues from your point of view–you could have just said that and skipped the numbered arguments. The fact is, it did originate. The question is, how–and this has nothing to do with your premises.

The outcomes need have no relation to reality. Why should heat, light and sound produce outcomes which give understanding? The power of reason presupposes insight from without!

That’s your assertion for which you’ve provided no evidence. But, this is just the usual argument.

The alternative is to assume matter is conscious without any evidence that it is!