So you think Hindu's have as much validity to their God claims as you do? Because that is what you must be saying if logically you claim is superior to theirs.
So you think Hindu's have as much validity to their God claims as you do? Because that is what you must be saying if logically you claim is superior to theirs.
I think a lot of Christians hold onto the idea that you can't use empirical evidence to deny something that is metaphysical - which is true. However, what they don't seem to understand is that Hitchens and Dawkins have never 100% denied the existence of God, etc. What they do is attack the logic behind religious fanaticism and the belief itself, which is also true. You cannot claim to be a rational person and claim that you are 100% sure that God exists, because rationalism relies primarily on empirical evidence.
I've challenged a lot of people to answer this honestly, and to this day I can't get a straight answer. Slava your one cool dude and I'd love your very honest answer.
What makes Hitchens or Dawkins fanatic atheists?
The thing is there is no middle ground in logic, if something is logical it is just that, if its illogical then its illogical.
That mindset is the basis of rationalism, reductionism, and the scientific method. If an idea is to stand up to anything it has to logicly work, and if it doesn't, discard it.
This is very antithetical to religious beliefs, and faith based ideas. Because we can destroy utterly any and all religious arguments, so its left to believers to hang on to 'but its my faith."
Not at all suggesting its that simple, faith is more complex than that, but I'm giving you the rational cold mind version, not something the vast majority of atheists have since we all live in a society with religion holding center stage.
Well fanatic is purely my word, and it might be the wrong word. Like I say I read God is not great and the tone didn't come across as bad as The God Delusion (which I couldn't even finish). I guess maybe the best description is that these guys come across as holier than thou when I find that same attitude unbecoming for religious people. I get that they don't believe in god; I have absolutely no issue with that. Its the attitude that comes with it though and the condescension that comes with it. They might be 110% sure that there is no god but in the same way I don't prefer to hear about a fundamentalist expound on the virtues of their faith ad nauseum I don't want to hear them pick apart religion.
I also find the broad strokes they use to be basically ignorant. If you want to argue that because some catholic priests have gone against their faith and commited terrible acts so therefore the entire religion is hypocritical, thats fine. You just have to wear the fact that a lot of atheists have commited the same crimes and have shown the same pathetic moral standards. In other words you shouldn't judge everyone based on the obvious misconduct of a few; and men like Hitchens are better than that.
I also understand what you're saying about logic, but in discussions about ethics and morality its not a black/white issue. There are areas where most people agree-not killing each other for example. Does it really matter how we come to agree on that? Maybe you have no belief in god, but adhere to a moral code of some sort. Maybe you are a devout catholic or buddhist. To me its basically irrelevant on a personal level.
I also find the broad strokes they use to be basically ignorant. If you want to argue that because some catholic priests have gone against their faith and commited terrible acts so therefore the entire religion is hypocritical, thats fine. You just have to wear the fact that a lot of atheists have commited the same crimes and have shown the same pathetic moral standards. In other words you shouldn't judge everyone based on the obvious misconduct of a few; and men like Hitchens are better than that.
False equivalency.
I would also be interested in a link, or quote, that conveys the exact sentiment I've bolded.
He certainly takes pot-shots at everyone in sight, but I doubt he ever makes the illogical conclusion that you are accusing him of offering.
__________________
There's always two sides to an argument, and it's always a tie.
I would also be interested in a link, or quote, that conveys the exact sentiment I've bolded.
He certainly takes pot-shots at everyone in sight, but I doubt he ever makes the illogical conclusion that you are accusing him of offering.
He talks about the issue in one of the videos on the first page of this thread. I watched it today, its the 15:00 vided thatis called the best of Hitch-slap or whatever. He doesn't come right out and say that everyone is a hypocrit but thats certainly the implication.
He talks about the issue in one of the videos on the first page of this thread. I watched it today, its the 15:00 vided thatis called the best of Hitch-slap or whatever. He doesn't come right out and say that everyone is a hypocrit but thats certainly the implication.
That is from a debate on the contributions of the Catholic Church to society. The debate is not about (a)theism.
They're not hypocrites because they raped kids - they're hypocrites because they proclaim moral superiority and there is no crime they could commit that would stifle that proclamation.
Perhaps you weren't off base with the comment I took exception to, but I do not consider your summary to be a fair representation of his claims. His arguments were not ignorant broad strokes.
Last edited by Gozer; 12-16-2011 at 06:44 PM.
Reason: changing stuff
Well fanatic is purely my word, and it might be the wrong word.
Well I'd argue its utterly the wrong word, but lets move past that.
Quote:
Like I say I read God is not great and the tone didn't come across as bad as The God Delusion (which I couldn't even finish). I guess maybe the best description is that these guys come across as holier than thou when I find that same attitude unbecoming for religious people.
Ok fine, but when you have 90% of people speaking one way, and the minority speaks up and you call them out for being offensive, maybe its time to evaluate how just that claim is.
Interesting you use the word holier than thou. Lets for example as a Muslim, why his God is the true God and all other Gods are false. This Muslim will call Christians as infidels, with all the fibre in his being he is CERTAIN you are all going to burn in hellfire because Mohammed the prophet was contacted in a cave.
How can you argue with that??!
So whats more arrogant.
My God is the one true God and I know his mind and what he wants.
or...
I don't know, there is no evidence for Gods of any kind, there are natural explanations for everything we see around us and questions we do not yet know are going to be vigorously attacked by our curiosity.
Yes, your right, the non believer is the arrogant one.
Quote:
I get that they don't believe in god; I have absolutely no issue with that. Its the attitude that comes with it though and the condescension that comes with it. They might be 110% sure that there is no god but in the same way I don't prefer to hear about a fundamentalist expound on the virtues of their faith ad nauseum I don't want to hear them pick apart religion.
You mean you don't like it when they pick apart your religion. Or are you equally offended by people challenging the beliefs of Scientology, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc..????
So religion in your opinion should be exempt from these attacks by people using logical arguments against the claims and ideals of religion of which is tries to perpetrate and push upon ALL people of this world no matter where they live?
Quote:
I also find the broad strokes they use to be basically ignorant. If you want to argue that because some catholic priests have gone against their faith and commited terrible acts so therefore the entire religion is hypocritical, thats fine. You just have to wear the fact that a lot of atheists have commited the same crimes and have shown the same pathetic moral standards. In other words you shouldn't judge everyone based on the obvious misconduct of a few; and men like Hitchens are better than that.
Actually statistics repeatedly show in the last 100 years that the least immoral and criminal group is non believers. The fact is the Catholic church has existed as an abomination to what Jesus the person would have seen as the opposite of his teachings. Any basic reading of history shows you why the Holy Roman Church formed and why it continued, because it was a form of power and control that didn't require a large army to propagate.
Sorry but the misconduct of a few?? The entire world has shown Catholic churches, schools, etc.. as BASTIONS of abuse and misconduct. How you can even begin to suggest non organized, non believing people could even ATTEMPT to reach that level of abuse, harm and systematic horror is beyond me. The Catholic church has 2000yrs behind it, modern atheism has what 10 years, when people feel free to speak their mind???
Quote:
I also understand what you're saying about logic, but in discussions about ethics and morality its not a black/white issue. There are areas where most people agree-not killing each other for example. Does it really matter how we come to agree on that? Maybe you have no belief in god, but adhere to a moral code of some sort. Maybe you are a devout catholic or buddhist. To me its basically irrelevant on a personal level.
It does matter greatly. If I say its wrong to murder because God says so in the 10 commandments, and an atheist says its wrong to murder because its bad for our society, those two have massive differences.
One suggests we can only know morality from God, and one suggest we know morality from interactions in our society, that evolve and change with knowledge, experiences and most importantly from what succeeds and what does not.
Claims of absolute morality, rigid claims of gays are born in sin, muslims are heathens which will burn in eternity, babies who die before baptism will burn in hell, etc... These are not logical issues, these are faith based bronze age beliefs intruding into our modern society.
IF you think we're militant for speaking against all this, well then I'm truly sad for you. Debating a counter point isn't militarism, its just what you'd hope for in a modern society.
Maybe if everyone just agreed and those who didn't shut up you'd be happy, because seemingly that is what you and so many want.
Just speaking out makes us militant, me thinks you need to search out the dictionary, I'd suggest militant is flying planes into buildings, not posing tough questions on a Calgary Puck message forum that isn't nice.
Just a thought
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Great minds are related to the brief span of time during which they live as great buildings are to a little square in which they stand: you cannot see them in all their magnitude because you are standing too close to them.
Well I'd argue its utterly the wrong word, but lets move past that.
Ok fine, but when you have 90% of people speaking one way, and the minority speaks up and you call them out for being offensive, maybe its time to evaluate how just that claim is.
Interesting you use the word holier than thou. Lets for example as a Muslim, why his God is the true God and all other Gods are false. This Muslim will call Christians as infidels, with all the fibre in his being he is CERTAIN you are all going to burn in hellfire because Mohammed the prophet was contacted in a cave.
How can you argue with that??!
So whats more arrogant.
My God is the one true God and I know his mind and what he wants.
or...
I don't know, there is no evidence for Gods of any kind, there are natural explanations for everything we see around us and questions we do not yet know are going to be vigorously attacked by our curiosity.
Yes, your right, the non believer is the arrogant one.
You mean you don't like it when they pick apart your religion. Or are you equally offended by people challenging the beliefs of Scientology, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc..????
So religion in your opinion should be exempt from these attacks by people using logical arguments against the claims and ideals of religion of which is tries to perpetrate and push upon ALL people of this world no matter where they live?
Actually statistics repeatedly show in the last 100 years that the least immoral and criminal group is non believers. The fact is the Catholic church has existed as an abomination to what Jesus the person would have seen as the opposite of his teachings. Any basic reading of history shows you why the Holy Roman Church formed and why it continued, because it was a form of power and control that didn't require a large army to propagate.
Sorry but the misconduct of a few?? The entire world has shown Catholic churches, schools, etc.. as BASTIONS of abuse and misconduct. How you can even begin to suggest non organized, non believing people could even ATTEMPT to reach that level of abuse, harm and systematic horror is beyond me. The Catholic church has 2000yrs behind it, modern atheism has what 10 years, when people feel free to speak their mind???
It does matter greatly. If I say its wrong to murder because God says so in the 10 commandments, and an atheist says its wrong to murder because its bad for our society, those two have massive differences.
One suggests we can only know morality from God, and one suggest we know morality from interactions in our society, that evolve and change with knowledge, experiences and most importantly from what succeeds and what does not.
Claims of absolute morality, rigid claims of gays are born in sin, muslims are heathens which will burn in eternity, babies who die before baptism will burn in hell, etc... These are not logical issues, these are faith based bronze age beliefs intruding into our modern society.
IF you think we're militant for speaking against all this, well then I'm truly sad for you. Debating a counter point isn't militarism, its just what you'd hope for in a modern society.
Maybe if everyone just agreed and those who didn't shut up you'd be happy, because seemingly that is what you and so many want.
Just speaking out makes us militant, me thinks you need to search out the dictionary, I'd suggest militant is flying planes into buildings, not posing tough questions on a Calgary Puck message forum that isn't nice.
Just a thought
Well there is no question that the religious zealots are frustrating as well, and I wouldn't imply anything else. Thats kind of my point though. I don't like it when any religion claims to be the one true path or be the only just religion; but for the exact same reason I don't like the hardline atheist implying that they are trying to educate the masses about the non-existence of god.
I hope you don't get the idea that I think debate is wrong. I spent countless hours in university debating these topics and god only knows (or doesn't depending on your viewpoint) how many hours I've spent arguing positions on CP! I think that by debating and arguing people learn way more than if we all just blindly agree actually. I also don't take it personally though; I've had some pretty heated debates on politics here and its a non-issue for me in the sense that I could sit down and have a beer with these guys tonight and not care! I know that not everyone thinks that though and religion is a pretty touchy issue.
I really don't think I can defend the catholic church as an institution. I'm not catholic, and you've probably done way more research about their scandals than I'll ever do! I don't agree with all that they espouse and certainly not all that they sanction. But whats the harm if a person wants to attend catholic mass? It has almost no effect on you personally.
As for the over the top "you're my enemy" talk from Hitchens thats not something we need more of when discussing religion. If he believes that religion has caused all of the worlds trials and tribulations then surely he recognizes its that exact attitude that brings about these conflicts.
Well there is no question that the religious zealots are frustrating as well, and I wouldn't imply anything else. Thats kind of my point though. I don't like it when any religion claims to be the one true path or be the only just religion; but for the exact same reason I don't like the hardline atheist implying that they are trying to educate the masses about the non-existence of god.
I was having a debate of sorts with my wife's grandfather several years ago on baptismal regeneration/infant baptism. He brought up the subject or else we wouldn't have had the conversation. But, being as it was on the table I certainly was going to express my opinion. After a bit of back and forth he was getting flustered and said to me: "You just think your the only one who is right". I looked at him astonished and asked sincerely: Do you think your wrong?". The conversation ended there.
Christianity like most religions claim to be the only true path. I realize there are adherants in most religious faith that will deny they are on the only path but, I wonder for them if they are true believers. Their faith's teaching are true or they are false and unreliable; not worth spending your time on.
Now if my wife's grandfather had said to me that I thought I was never wrong I would have refuted that accusation. I'm aware of my own fallibility. To think otherwise would be to be a fool. You don't have to live very long to see ones own limitations and weaknesses.
But if we are accountable to anyone(whether it be the Creator or ones own self) endless indecision is a great sin. It wastes our most precious commodity;time. You chose what you believe is the right path and you get moving. Sure you read the sign posts on the way and check your bearings but, you keep moving on unless you become convinced you've set the wrong course. That is the nature of faith.
Verbally expressing ones beliefs is also important. By putting them into your own words(especially in a hostile environment) you are forced to define what you believe. That definition you then can take with you along your path and measure it against what life teaches you.
I believe I will one day stand before my Creator and give account of the time I had here. I may find out then I had much wrong. But, what I don't want to answer for is apathy or indecision.
If anyone ever wants to check out the Calgary chapter of the Center For Inquiry (a skeptics group), it's headed up by Nathan Phelps, the estranged son of the infamous Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church clan. Interesting guy.
They're holding a Hitchens tribute at Jameson's Pub up by the University of Calgary tomorrow night.
The Following User Says Thank You to Reggie Dunlop For This Useful Post:
I believe I will one day stand before my Creator and give account of the time I had here. I may find out then I had much wrong. But, what I don't want to answer for is apathy or indecision.
Fortunately, folks like Hitchens are neither apathetic nor indecisive!
If anyone ever wants to check out the Calgary chapter of the Center For Inquiry (a skeptics group), it's headed up by Nathan Phelps, the estranged son of the infamous Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church clan. Interesting guy.
They're holding a Hitchens tribute at Jameson's Pub up by the University of Calgary tomorrow night.
No Hitchens wasn't either apathetic or indecisive. He believed he was right and walked the walk.
I'm not trying to take the piss out of you here CB, serious question.
Do you believe Hitchens or any other deceased atheist is in hell now? Do you believe that a good man, loving husband, kind father would burn in hell for not believing in god? But a repentant child abuser or serial rapist gets a hall pass?
) how many hours I've spent arguing positions on CP! I think that by debating and arguing people learn way more than if we all just blindly agree actually. I also don't take it personally though; I've had some pretty heated debates on politics here and its a non-issue for me in the sense that I could sit down and have a beer with these guys tonight and not care! I know that not everyone thinks that though and religion is a pretty touchy issue.
