Hitchens and dawkins, etc

[Jocko_VT]

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

This is clearly my fault. What I meant to say was “…my comments taken in context.” It’s true that when my comments are taken out of context, I feel no obligation to continue with them out of context.

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

Indeed. And I didn’t think it would stop you, either.

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.

You lack tact and graciousness, too, what with your decision to use my name in the place of your rube. But at least you’re consistent in misrepresenting my argument, and in your lack of graciousness.

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…

Thanks. Goodbye.

 

[Betterave]

Socrates: So Hitchens and Dawkins do offer an argument for the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of god, but I’ll have to read their books to find out what that argument is. I wonder if that would really be worth my while?
Bett: I doubt it.
Jocko: I know! Why don’t you just ask the questions and give the answers you want?
Bett and Socrates:
Plato: Allow me:
Pretend Socrates: So what do you mean, Jocko?
Sort-of-pretend Jocko: I mean that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim…
real Jocko interrupts: No, you mustn’t mention burdens of proof. I’ve fully discusses that issue and I’ve had enough of it.
Plato: But you said…
Jocko: Enough! I don’t like Platonic dialogue either.

TBC…

 

[Betterave]

Anonymous Rube: The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. You say there is a god–the burden of proof is on you. I say there is no god–I have nothing to prove. After all, you can’t prove a negative.

Obvious guy: But that’s not true. If you say “there is no god” then you have made a positive claim: You have posited the non-existence of god, you have…

real real Jocko (interrupting again): Hey! How dare you use my name for Socrates’ rube?

Plato: Where’d you come from? I thought you were going to stay out of this?

TBC…

 

[Betterave]

This is clearly my fault. What I meant to say was “…my comments taken in context.” It’s true that when my comments are taken out of context, I feel no obligation to continue with them out of context.

Unfortunately it is perfectly obvious that I provided, verbatim, the context for your comments, so you are just being dishonest here, aren’t you?

Indeed. And I didn’t think it would stop you, either.

You lack tact and graciousness, too, what with your decision to use my name in the place of your rube. But at least you’re consistent in misrepresenting my argument, and in your lack of graciousness.

I used your name because I was presenting your arguments (again, often verbatim). Your completely ignoring this and attacking me with with more groundless ad hominems shows that you lack tact and graciousness (and reasonableness and honesty).

If you want to claim that I have presented your arguments/claims inaccurately, you’re free to try to substantiate that charge, although that seems not to be your MO.

Thanks. Goodbye.

Goodbye.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Goodbye.

Ahh, Betty! And our relationship was just starting to blossom.

Take care. I’m sure I’ll see you in another post.

 

[Betterave]

Ahh, Betty! And our relationship was just starting to blossom.

Take care. I’m sure I’ll see you in another post.

All the best to you. Next time I hope we can stick to having an intelligent forthright dialogue about the substance of whatever we are discussing - dare to dream, right?

 

[jen_fla]

bette and jocko are so adorable!

 

[Jocko_VT]

bette and jocko are so adorable!

Thanks, Jen. I gotta admit, I was playing hard to get, but betty got me in the end.

 

[jen_fla]

Thanks, Jen. I gotta admit, I was playing hard to get, but betty got me in the end.

most amusing!

and allow me to say, debate skills aside, you do seem very polite. i for one am glad you stick around.

peace.

 

[Jocko_VT]

most amusing!

and allow me to say, debate skills aside, you do seem very polite. i for one am glad you stick around.

peace.

Thanks. I will confess, though, that I lash out too often. I’m working on that. I let this stuff get to me too much.

 

[Pieman333272]

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.

God made us. God loved us infinitely. We disobeyed the one commandment he gave. God is an infinite being and the love he felt for us was infinite. Ergo, an infinite offence to him. It doesn’t matter that you find it “petty” or “unjust”, that’s just your opinion. The theological nature of the event remains that it is an infinite offence to God.

Proof, you say? Sure, for the people who may have witnessed the event.

I actually meant people who believed in the Gospel.

But what about the rest of us, who are left with evidence for said event that is, at best, pitiful, and at worst, nonexistent?

I already said I meant it for general believers in the Gospel. Your argument against my counter is a false delimma. If you mean arguments for the resurrection, than we can get into that but I just finished a painstaking debate on the issue and would rather not, unless you really want.

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.

The Thomas story isn’t a story about blind faith. It’s about believing on the evidence you have. The point was, Thomas had more than enough evidence but still didn’t believe - “blessed are those who do not see and believe” means that those who don’t demand more and more evidence after each of their standards are met will be blessed.

Still, if you have evidence for the Resurrection, I’m all ears, but I don’t want the thread to derail.

If you seriously want to debate the resurrection I’m happy to but can you create another thread on it? Right here in the philosophy forum, thank you.

I’m impressed that you acknowledge that fact that your religion’s holy book is partly influenced by other, older religions.

Judaism, yes, but I never said that. I said my religion’s traditions, i.e. practices , were influenced by paganism. Not major ones, just some.

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.

Oh, you fell for that pseudohistory. I’ll just give links for your select examples, just point out any problems you have with the cases they make and I can defend it.

Horus

As a matter of fact, I did.
tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Horus

Dionysus

He’s that Greek guy.
tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html
philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Dionysos

Osiris?

The green Egyptian with the funny stick.
tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#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.

Perhaps you should verify that you yourself are not subscribing to bunk ideas to hold on to a position. Anybody who thinks the Jesus of the Gospels was influenced by Pagan Deities does not objectively and validly study history and should not be respected as such. I can have pity on the poor researcher high schooler who was told this by his friends, but on an atheist who is just using it to ruin other’s faith, I have none.

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

Who? Please don’t tell me Richard Carrier or “Archya S.” or whatever her name is.

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.

Yes it’s hard, no that doesn’t damage my argument. You didn’t really challenge it, to be honest. The Church has made clear you do not have to agree with EVERYTHING a Saint says. It applies nicely here.

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.

That’s the same one where Sam almost went ballistic, isn’t it? I remember reading a review. Apparently Sam’s points, in both the book and the debate, were philosophically weak at best.

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.

Granted I haven’t done a full objective study, I’ve read many sources from both sides and I can honestly say that more Christians than atheists are historically honest, apply valid methods, and are open to other positions on the issue. Besides, hardly any of my belief in the resurrection rests on Craig - while I find him a good defender of it, I think there are much better ones out there.

 

[jen_fla]

Thanks. I will confess, though, that I lash out too often. I’m working on that. I let this stuff get to me too much.

to me, you do not come off that way at all. try not to let it get to you, just understand that the philosophy section has some excellent heavy-hitting debaters floating around and a comment made in passing might pull someone into a full blown chess match. the quality of information you can stumble onto in this particular forum is utterly mind blowing. i love this joint.

cheers,
jen

 

[Prophesy]

Thanks. I will confess, though, that I lash out too often. I’m working on that. I let this stuff get to me too much.

It’s definitely easy to get lost in the debate. I find that staying nice works best for everyone though.

-Prophesy

 

[Betterave]

jen fla: bette and jocko are so adorable!

bette and jocko: :blushing:

Plato: So I guess my work here is done…

 

[lao_tzu]

Greetings Pieman,

I hope you don’t mind my stepping in to your discussion.

God made us. God loved us infinitely. We disobeyed the one commandment he gave. God is an infinite being and the love he felt for us was infinite. Ergo, an infinite offence to him. It doesn’t matter that you find it “petty” or “unjust”, that’s just your opinion. The theological nature of the event remains that it is an infinite offence to God.

If we’re not to judge what is unjust, how can we be responsible for any moral actions?

Should we question our sense of moral outrage when confronted with murder, theft, and dancing because it’s only our opinion? Whoops, must have confused you all for baptists there. Make that murder, theft, and masses held in English. Oh wait, that’s the other Catholics. Make that murder, theft, and gambling, unless it’s bingo of course.

Look, don’t start. You know what I mean.

But here’s the thing. Certainly there are moral boundaries acknowledged by nearly all of us, and others that are more subject to debate. We can find biblical support for both Inherited guilt and rewards, and for restricting punishment to the guilty actors alone. But let’s not shade across the judgment with charges that “we disobeyed” in order to justify the collective punishment. We weren’t there.

The question is one of punishment for actions committed by an ancestor. I don’t consider this unjust. I consider it absurd. This doesn’t happen, not in my neck of the woods, anyway.

At the same time, the original audience of the biblical authors obviously felt otherwise. The successful inception of monotheism says these arguments were successful. Clearly, things have changed, at least here in the West. A few weeks ago, I was reading an article about retribution in Iraq against the families of insurgents. There’s still an audience for the message.

The Thomas story isn’t a story about blind faith. It’s about believing on the evidence you have. The point was, Thomas had more than enough evidence but still didn’t believe - “blessed are those who do not see and believe” means that those who don’t demand more and more evidence after each of their standards are met will be blessed.

I’m convinced the story of Thomas was conceived as a polemic against a nascent splinter within early Christianity. Thomas is said to have founded his own churches in India which held a more human depiction of Jesus, one who died as a man but continued in a spiritual existence. They followed a separate gospel that did not include a physical resurrection. In response, John forced Thomas’ hand into Jesus side as a refutation.

Oh, you fell for that pseudohistory. I’ll just give links for your select examples, just point out any problems you have with the cases they make and I can defend it.

As a matter of fact, I did.
tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Horus

He’s that Greek guy.
tektonics.org/copycat/dionysus.html
philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Dionysos

The green Egyptian with the funny stick.
tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Osiris

Perhaps you should verify that you yourself are not subscribing to bunk ideas to hold on to a position. Anybody who thinks the Jesus of the Gospels was influenced by Pagan Deities does not objectively and validly study history and should not be respected as such. I can have pity on the poor researcher high schooler who was told this by his friends, but on an atheist who is just using it to ruin other’s faith, I have none.

Oh my. Now I like Phil. He’s not overstated or presumptuous, and a generally good guy. But anyone who’s dealt with Holding is going to look askance at anything cited from Tektonics. The guy’s a blowhard with no formal training at all … well, except for that six-week mail order course to become a “certified apologist” he took last year. His personal behavior is simply atrocious, and apparently calculatedly so. He uses fecal insults to end engagements when he finds himself out of his depth.

You should note that Phil’s article acknowledges the syncretism being discussed in the section on Dionysus, quoting Seaford.

Who? Please don’t tell me Richard Carrier or “Archya S.” or whatever her name is.

What’s your issue with Richard Carrier?

Granted I haven’t done a full objective study, I’ve read many sources from both sides and I can honestly say that more Christians than atheists are historically honest, apply valid methods, and are open to other positions on the issue. Besides, hardly any of my belief in the resurrection rests on Craig - while I find him a good defender of it, I think there are much better ones out there.

Craig acknowledges his own arguments as personally unconvincing in a video where he reminds the interviewer that our atheistic arguments are spawned by Satan. Let’s just say no one with the discernment to dismiss Archarya S should feel comfortable relying on Craig for apologetics.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Pieman333272]

Greetings Pieman,

I hope you don’t mind my stepping in to your discussion.

Not a problem.

If we’re not to judge what is unjust, how can we be responsible for any moral actions?

By God’s revelation of what is and is not just to us.

Should we question our sense of moral outrage when confronted with murder, theft, and dancing because it’s only our opinion? Whoops, must have confused you all for baptists there. Make that murder, theft, and masses held in English. Oh wait, that’s the other Catholics. Make that murder, theft, and gambling, unless it’s bingo of course.

Well, since Catholics are moral positivists, than we argue most of our views on issues are fact and not opinion. The Church says gambling is fine, if somebody doesn’t like it that’s their problem, but I’ll take the Church’s word for it on my 21st birthday.

But here’s the thing. Certainly there are moral boundaries acknowledged by nearly all of us, and others that are more subject to debate. We can find biblical support for both Inherited guilt and rewards, and for restricting punishment to the guilty actors alone. But let’s not shade across the judgment with charges that “we disobeyed” in order to justify the collective punishment. We weren’t there.

But we are *their * descendants, they disobeyed and messed up their decedents too.

The question is one of punishment for actions committed by an ancestor. I don’t consider this unjust. I consider it absurd. This doesn’t happen, not in my neck of the woods, anyway.

Again, it was an infinite offence and God made it up to us anyway.

I’m convinced the story of Thomas was conceived as a polemic against a nascent splinter within early Christianity. Thomas is said to have founded his own churches in India which held a more human depiction of Jesus, one who died as a man but continued in a spiritual existence. They followed a separate gospel that did not include a physical resurrection. In response, John forced Thomas’ hand into Jesus side as a refutation.

The Gospel of Thomas is a Second Century Work (after John) as well as being a sayings Gospel, so the absence of resurrection is unimportant. It doesn’t matter what Thomas went and did, the point is, the Thomas Story is NOT a proof of blind faith. Now, if you want to debate whether or not Thomas founded a second branch of Christianity which went on to conflict with the main one, than I recommend starting a thread in the “sacred scripture” forum, and I’ll comment.

The guy’s a blowhard with no formal training at all … well, except for that six-week mail order course to become a “certified apologist” he took last year. His personal behavior is simply atrocious, and apparently calculatedly so. He uses fecal insults to end engagements when he finds himself out of his depth.

That’s just ad homenim (attacking the person and not the argument) even granted that Holding is a jerk, that hardly undermines any of his essays.

You should note that Phil’s article acknowledges the syncretism being discussed in the section on Dionysus, quoting Seaford.

That’s correct, but note that he also cites Seaford acknowledging that it is very unlikely that Jesus, or any core Christian Doctrines, were rip-offs of Dionysus. I think I also read somewhere some of those similarities came only after Christianity.

What’s your issue with Richard Carrier?

He claims to be an objective historian but employs dishonest and useless methods in his analyses.

Craig acknowledges his own arguments as personally unconvincing in a video where he reminds the interviewer that our atheistic arguments are spawned by Satan. Let’s just say no one with the discernment to dismiss Archarya S should feel comfortable relying on Craig for apologetics.

It doesn’t matter if an argument “convinces” somebody, it matters if it’s logically sound. Otherwise all arguments for anything can be dismissed.

 

[Betterave]

The question is one of punishment for actions committed by an ancestor. I don’t consider this unjust. I consider it absurd. This doesn’t happen, not in my neck of the woods, anyway.

It’s not absurd (in the sense you evidently intend) and it does happen in your neck of the woods, provided you live somewhere on planet Earth. When a father goes to prison, his children suffer as a result. When parents abuse alcohol, their children suffer. It also works the other way: when children act badly, their parents suffer. This is simply the fundamental reality that we’re all familiar with. If you wish to claim that it is absurd, fine; but notwithstanding this charge, that is indeed the way things are.

And a more direct analogy: if a son acts badly so as to forfeit the inheritance his father had planned to give him, it is neither absurd nor unjust - but rather perfectly natural - for him to forfeit the chance to pass on this inheritance to his children.

 

[Betterave]

Again, it was an infinite offence….

As you may have noticed, I take issue with this claim. If I offend an infinite God, it does not seem to follow that my offence is infinite. I think the very notion of ‘infinite offence’ doesn’t really make sense: God and God alone is infinite. Do you have anything to say in defense of the propriety of this phrase to express what the Church teaches?

 

[Pieman333272]

As you may have noticed, I take issue with this claim. If I offend an infinite God, it does not seem to follow that my offence is infinite. I think the very notion of ‘infinite offence’ doesn’t really make sense: God and God alone is infinite. Do you have anything to say in defense of the propriety of this phrase to express what the Church teaches?

I can see your point here. I guess it was God’s one and only commandment, and his will was infinite, so that which goes against his will does so infinity. It’s like the difference between one and infinity, I guess. I never looked at it the way you do, so you may have a valid point.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Do you have any reasons? Or do you have too much on your plate? (With other threads)