Hitchens and dawkins, etc

[Jocko_VT]

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

I’m sorry that you give every ounce of you consideration to your fellow catholics, and none to me.

 

[Jocko_VT]

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.

But you insist on discussing matters I’m not interested in discussing. You want to start over? Let’s do that. Stop insinuating that I’m ignorant, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. Understand? And get off the issue of burden of proof (which includes “positive assertions”). If you want a conversation other than that…let’s have it. But I’m not here to prove that there is no god. I never tried to do that. The ONLY thing I’ve talked about in these forums is morality, and I responded to the OP about Hitchens and Dawkins’ arguments. I’m not here to prove there’s no god and have no interest in doing so.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Why not?

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.

You are assuming that the inanimate mix was the sole factor. Your premise that only matter exists is certainly in question.

Because there is no evidence that it has any insight.

The animate matter? Humans have insight.

How did insight originate from that which lacks insight?

The fact is, it did originate. The question is, how–and this has nothing to do with your premises.

In that case it has nothing to do with your premises either!

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.

The evidence is all around you! Try to derive reason from inanimate or - even animate -objects.

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

No response!

 

[Jocko_VT]

Why not?

You are assuming that the inanimate mix was the sole factor. Your premise that only matter exists is certainly in question.

How did insight originate from that which lacks insight?

In that case it has nothing to do with your premises either!

The evidence is all around you! Try to derive reason from inanimate or - even animate -objects.

No response!

I just don’t buy your argument. I’m not interested in convincing you of anything concerning this. Perhaps the discussion in another thread will go this way, though, and we’ll cover it there.

 

[Betterave]

The other thread!! We were just there yesterday.

Oh; the other thread where you refused to respond to my objections to your position and where I pointed out the same thing as I’ve pointed out here?? But Jocko, obviously I deny that your arguments in that thread were not simplistic and dogmatic, so you’re again just begging the question. (N.B.: None of this should be construed as an insult; these are my honest assessments of your claims and I am prepared to defend them with reasons should you wish to discuss them.)

 

[Jocko_VT]

Oh; the other thread where you refused to respond to my objections to your position and where I pointed out the same thing as I’ve pointed out here?? But Jocko, obviously I deny that your arguments in that thread were not simplistic and dogmatic, so you’re again just begging the question. (N.B.: None of this should be construed as an insult; these are my honest assessments of your claims and I am prepared to defend them with reasons should you wish to discuss them.)

Yet you continue to assert they are simplistic and dogmatic without actually providing reasons. Had you provided reasons, there would have been something to discuss, but instead, you’ve hurled insults. I’ve learned that to ask you questions is useless, because you respond with questions like “Do you understand your question?” (I’m paraphrasing, of course). Makes dialogue difficult.

But, no, not that thread.

 

[Betterave]

But you insist on discussing matters I’m not interested in discussing.

That is not correct. I responded to your public comments here and have tried to correct your own mischaracterizations of those comments. I do not insist on discussing these matters with you, although I am happy if you are interested in doing so. But you do not have the right to make comments here and not have them critiqued. That’s simply not how it works.

You want to start over? Let’s do that. Stop insinuating that I’m ignorant, dishonest, hypocritical, etc. Understand?

But I think you are all those things, I think we all are. I think that fact is one of the most important things we need to understand about ourselves. Think Socrates. (It also seems clear that you’re a rather intelligent person and that you do have some decent analytical skills - although, as I’ve argued, you don’t always use them as you should.)

And get off the issue of burden of proof (which includes “positive assertions”). If you want a conversation other than that…let’s have it. But I’m not here to prove that there is no god. I never tried to do that. The ONLY thing I’ve talked about in these forums is morality, and I responded to the OP about Hitchens and Dawkins’ arguments. I’m not here to prove there’s no god and have no interest in doing so.

I directly addressed the comments about H and D that you said that you were willing to discuss and you immediately got all squirmy and refused to discuss the matter in a reasonable way. I have never asked you to prove there’s no god, so it seems silly for you to imply that I have.

 

[Betterave]

Yet you continue to assert they are simplistic and dogmatic without actually providing reasons. Had you provided reasons, there would have been something to discuss, but instead, you’ve hurled insults. I’ve learned that to ask you questions is useless, because you respond with questions like “Do you understand your question?” (I’m paraphrasing, of course). Makes dialogue difficult.

But, no, not that thread.

Oh BOY! You really are being dense here. You continue to insist that I’ve hurled insults even though I have repeatedly denied doing so. You continue to fail to argue for your claim that I have “hurled insults,” even though I have asked you to do so.

Now by contrast, if you had asked me for my reasons for asserting that your claims were simplistic and dogmatic, I would have given you reasons - and in fact I did: you simply refused to respond to them and chose to end the conversation.

So again, if you continue to mischaracterize your own claims and mine, if you continue to beg the question and to make your case in an unreasonable and dishonest way, I will simply continue to point this out. Seriously: what else do expect??

 

[Jocko_VT]

I directly addressed the comments about H and D that you said that you were willing to discuss and you immediately got all squirmy and refused to discuss the matter in a reasonable way. I have never asked you to prove there’s no god, so it seems silly for you to imply that I have.

Really? The what, precisely, are you asking? If you’re not asking me to prove there’s no god, and you’re not asking about the burden of proof, then what are you asking?

 

[Jocko_VT]

You really are being dense here.

I suppose this isn’t an insult either?

You continue to insist that I’ve hurled insults even though I have repeatedly denied doing so. You continue to fail to argue for your claim that I have “hurled insults,” even though I have asked you to do so.

I dont’ feel compelled to do so.

Now by contrast, if you had asked me for my reasons for asserting that your claims were simplistic and dogmatic, I would have given you reasons - and in fact I did: you simply refused to respond to them and chose to end the conversation.

I asked you about the hermeneutal complexity you were referring to, and you refused to answer. The questions you refer to were laced with insults (which you deny having made, I understand), and they were tedious in that you continually asked questions, to which I provided answers, to which you said I hadn’t answered your questions. So then, you’d ask another question, and so on and so on. I’m not interested in the game you were playing.

So again, if you continue to mischaracterize your own claims and mine, if you continue to beg the question and to make your case in an unreasonable and dishonest way, I will simply continue to point this out. Seriously: what else do expect??

I expect you to either move on (i.e., stop bickering), or not. There’s only one way to have a dialogue–all you want to do is argue about arguing. I’m not interested. And I’m done.

 

[Betterave]

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

On this I’ll just add that Pieman was obviously just speaking very loosely; I’m sure he wasn’t trying to trick you.

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?

Why don’t we get to be unaffected by original sin? Obviously because there is such a thing as original sin. If we were unaffected by it, it could only be because there was no such thing. But we believe that there is and you haven’t said anything here that would explain the ‘injustice’ of it.

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.

I’m not sure if you’re entirely serious here, but you’re obviously misinterpreting what we believe. The effect of eating was ignorance, not knowledge.

But I digress. Inherited guilt is not justice in any sense of the word, simple as that.

“Simple as that” is really not an argument, simple as that. Do you or Hitch have any real arguments? If not, then maybe you’ll begin to understand why ‘religious’ types tend to dismiss him and his ilk as raving fanatics.

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.

I was asking the latter, to which you give me a contradictory reply: on the one hand, you really can’t answer; on the other, your answer is that Jesus knew that Christian claims were (would be?) unfalsifiable and he wanted this to be regarded as a good thing. Now my follow-up question is: how did you arrive at this answer? Was it through a process of sincere open-minded inquiry, a genuine search for the truth about what Jesus seems to have meant? (I’ll give you a hint: I’m pretty sure the short answer to the last question is no.)

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.”

What do you mean “self-explanatory”? What part of the story explains itself that way? (It would help if you actually made specific reference to the story in answering this question.)

I disagree with Jesus here because I value evidence, of course.

But obviously Jesus values evidence too, but his concept of evidence is different from yours.

I don’t think that faith is a virtue, at least according to the Hebrews 11:1-2 definition of faith.

Why not?

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.

Of course none of this seems to particularly relevant to proving your claim. All you have is fallacious appeal to authority and a bunch of “so-what?”…

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.

…but you at least do admit that your claim is recklessly ambitious (i.e., intellectually irresponsible). You are mistaken, however, in connecting this admission to the fact that you are uneducated. Your claims would be irresponsible regardless of what education you had received.

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.

Suffice it to say? Suffice it to say that you are just happy to voice your opinions here and seem uninterested in examining whether those opinions are actually credible.

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.

I would guess Hitch has been misleading you. What did he actually say about this? In any case, you’re completely begging the question here, perhaps something Hitch taught you to do, so again, maybe this is why the guy is not taken seriously by a lot of intelligent people. (I don’t know - I’m open to hearing what he actually said.)

 

[Betterave]

I expect you to either move on (i.e., stop bickering), or not. There’s only one way to have a dialogue–all you want to do is argue about arguing. I’m not interested. And I’m done.

I’ll just say I’m not interested in it either, but unfortunately when an intelligent person like yourself, who clearly could do better (I think! - ?), repeatedly makes bad arguments, I have an uncontrollable urge to point it out. Sorry. Since you refuse to modify your irrational approach, however, I will do my best to drop it.

 

[Prophesy]

I think they both make the point, though Hitchens is more virulent as you point out. But does actually characterize either of their arguments? I don’t think so.

The summation isn’t completely correct, but is similar. The implication (particularly in Hitchens) is that religious people do terrible things on the behalf of religion, therefore, religion is a bad thing (he would be under the belief that if religion motivates people to do bad things, if there was no religion, people wouldn’t do those bad things).

Hitchens goes further to say that people, such as Mother Teresa, who is often harolded as a good and upright person, was actually malicious.

Isn’t he getting at the things once attributed to supernatural causes now being explainable by natural causes? For example, disease.

Really depends on the sophistication of understanding divine action, for someone to believe that God is directly causing someone to have minor coughs is pretty silly and we can both agree despite a disagreement about the existence of a transcendent God. With my understanding of the small box virus, could I still believe that God inflicted that as a plague upon pharaoh? Sure.

I’ve heard him talk a bit about Mother Theresa. Does he call her evil?

I’ll have to go through some clips again and see if I can find something specific on that later.

As part of the choir to whom Dawkins and Hitchens preach, I don’t take their writings so literally as I think many people do. 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.

I’ll agree with you that both have the potentiality to be good people and awful people. It’s always nice when we can agree on much of the discussion.

-Prophesy

 

[Jocko_VT]

The summation isn’t completely correct, but is similar. The implication (particularly in Hitchens) is that religious people do terrible things on the behalf of religion, therefore, religion is a bad thing (he would be under the belief that if religion motivates people to do bad things, if there was no religion, people wouldn’t do those bad things).

Yes, they do both make that argument. You’re right. I do think the only reason that they’re making that argument is as a defensive move against people who blame atheism for the Holocaust, the Gulag, and other atrocities. You know the argument: Religious people’s atrocities have often been in the name of their religion, while no atrocity has been in the name of atheism. We needn’t go into that argument here–my point is simply that I think Dawkins and Hitchens are making a response rather than starting an offensive. (Though I do understand why it’s not read that way by theists).

Hitchens goes further to say that people, such as Mother Teresa, who is often harolded as a good and upright person, was actually malicious.

I’d like to read a point-counterpoint between Hitchens and someone else on an example like Mother Teresa–it would be interesting. I’ve heard *some *of hitchens’ points–they seem reasonable and thought-provoking, and I’d love to hear the response to his points.

Really depends on the sophistication of understanding divine action, for someone to believe that God is directly causing someone to have minor coughs is pretty silly and we can both agree despite a disagreement about the existence of a transcendent God. With my understanding of the small box virus, could I still believe that God inflicted that as a plague upon pharaoh? Sure.

You’re obviously correct.

I’ll have to go through some clips again and see if I can find something specific on that later.

Not necessary unless other people come out in defense of the OP.

I’ll agree with you that both have the potentiality to be good people and awful people. It’s always nice when we can agree on much of the discussion.

Indeed.

 

[Prophesy]

Yes, they do both make that argument. You’re right. I do think the only reason that they’re making that argument is as a defensive move against people who blame atheism for the Holocaust, the Gulag, and other atrocities. You know the argument: Religious people’s atrocities have often been in the name of their religion, while no atrocity has been in the name of atheism. We needn’t go into that argument here–my point is simply that I think Dawkins and Hitchens are making a response rather than starting an offensive. (Though I do understand why it’s not read that way by theists).

It’s funny because we’re seeing the same thing from different sides of the room. I’ll raise atheistic atrocities such as the the Soviet League of the Godless whenever someone blames Christianity for some tragedy like the Crusades. Though I’ll caveat it with, neither belief necessitates violence as these actions ultimately reject the fundamental principles at the centre of the ideologies (Christianity with charity and atheism with liberty of thought).

Not necessary unless other people come out in defense of the OP.

Thanks, but I think it’d be interesting to see anyways.

-Prophesy

 

[Betterave]

Really? The what, precisely, are you asking? If you’re not asking me to prove there’s no god, and you’re not asking about the burden of proof, then what are you asking?

From post 129 (I’ll bold my question; please note it is not asking you to prove there’s no god):
Right; so as I said, your positive claim here is that there is an utter lack of evidence for god(s). Now do you think that you need to have some sort of proof for this positive assertion? (You seem to have logically implied that you do.)

That’s what I was asking, and I did so in response to this assertion from you:
So, if you want to talk about this:

Quote:
“On another note, for me, the utter lack of evidence for god(s) is a real clincher!”
…which has nothing to do with the burden of proof, then so be it.​

So you can go ahead and withdraw your comment. Otherwise you ought to follow through with your stated willingness to discuss it. You shouldn’t hide behind arbitrarily stipulated restrictions of how you’re willing to discuss it while at the same time pretending you’re ‘open’ to talking about it.

(The puzzling thing here is that I know you’re smarter than this; I’ve seen that you are in your responses to other posters. You need to try to hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others (when you’re not being a douche, that is ).)

 

[Jocko_VT]

From post 129 (I’ll bold my question; please note it is not asking you to prove there’s no god):
Right; so as I said, your positive claim here is that there is an utter lack of evidence for god(s). Now do you think that you need to have some sort of proof for this positive assertion? (You seem to have logically implied that you do.)

That’s what I was asking, and I did so in response to this assertion from you:
So, if you want to talk about this:

Quote:
“On another note, for me, the utter lack of evidence for god(s) is a real clincher!”
…which has nothing to do with the burden of proof, then so be it.​

So you can go ahead and withdraw your comment. Otherwise you ought to follow through with your stated willingness to discuss it. You shouldn’t hide behind arbitrarily stipulated restrictions of how you’re willing to discuss it while at the same time pretending you’re ‘open’ to talking about it.

As I’ve stated before, my argument is that Hitchens and Dawkins arguments that interest me is that there is no evidence of god. I don’t need to defend that that’s what interests me–or that this particualr aspect of their argument, rather than the Person X argument, was the important part.

So, you insist on making this about something else:

Whether or not Dawkins and Hitchens need proof for their assertion is neither here nor there for me, but they do offer an argument, nonetheless, that there is no evidence for god.

 

[Betterave]

As I’ve stated before, my argument is that Hitchens and Dawkins arguments that interest me is that there is no evidence of god. I don’t need to defend that that’s what interests me–or that this particualr aspect of their argument, rather than the Person X argument, was the important part.

Whaaat? That makes no sense as a response to what I said. I never said anything like what you’re implying I did here.

So, you insist on making this about something else:

Whether or not Dawkins and Hitchens need proof for their assertion is neither here nor there for me, but they do offer an argument, nonetheless, that there is no evidence for god.

Okay, lovely. What is that argument?

 

[Jocko_VT]

Whaaat? That makes no sense as a response to what I said. I never said anything like what you’re implying I did here.

Okay, lovely. What is that argument?

You need to read Hitchens’ God is Not Great, and Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Dawkins is a quick read. Hitchens, I listened to on CD. By most accounts I’ve read/heard, Hitchens is the greater mind. Dawkins is, after all, irretrievably outside his area of expertise.

I’m not going to make their argument for them (as I’ve already said several times). If you want to critique their arguments yourself, that seems well in line with the OP. I’d likely even respond to your critiques!! You tell me what’s wrong with their arguments. For me, my interests are less in Hitchens and Dawkins and more in Bauman and Beck (whose arguments I have been presenting).

I understand you want to take this Socratic approach, but I’m not interested in being your rube.

Good luck to you. I’ll be reading your posts. If it’s an inspiration, and I know you know this, Plato may have made up Socrates!! So you can do it on your own–just ask the questions and give the answers you want.

 

[Betterave]

You need to read Hitchens’ God is Not Great, and Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Dawkins is a quick read. Hitchens, I listened to on CD. By most accounts I’ve read/heard, Hitchens is the greater mind. Dawkins is, after all, irretrievably outside his area of expertise.

I’m not going to make their argument for them (as I’ve already said several times). If you want to critique their arguments yourself, that seems well in line with the OP. I’d likely even respond to your critiques!! You tell me what’s wrong with their arguments. For me, my interests are less in Hitchens and Dawkins and more in Bauman and Beck (whose arguments I have been presenting).

I see. So you withdraw your former assertion that you were willing to discuss your comments here.

I understand you want to take this Socratic approach, but I’m not interested in being your rube.

As you’re probably aware, Socrates’ rubes often weren’t too interested in that either. But that didn’t stop Plato!

Good luck to you. I’ll be reading your posts. If it’s an inspiration, and I know you know this, Plato may have made up Socrates!! So you can do it on your own–just ask the questions and give the answers you want.

Make me be Plato instead of Socrates? I’d rather not, but it is a cute suggestion so I’ll have a go, although I warn you, I have none of Plato’s literary talents.

Jocko: On another note, for me, the utter lack of evidence for god(s) is a real clincher!
Socrates: A real clincher! Interesting. What do you mean?
Jocko: I’m happy to discuss what it means!
Socrates: Then please do so!
Jocko: Please do so? What are you talking about? Please stop bickering with me.
Socrates: But you just said…
Jocko: Listen: go read some books. I don’t like Socratic dialogue.
TBC…