Nobody Dies for a Lie

[element771]

I can assure you that PhD theses are incredibly boring in general and mine is not at all an exception to that rule. .

My thesis is horribly boring.

One of my buddies stuck a 20 dollar bill in the middle of the copy of his thesis that is kept in the library. He returned 10 years later to find the 20 undisturbed.

[Teallaura]

I don't think so. The point is that people WILL die for something they fervently believe to be true. That claim does not attest to the truth of what they are dying for. It simply attests to the fervency of their beliefs.

In a word - DUH. Congrats on finally understanding the point. Sorry about the sarcasm but that is exactly what you just did.

HOWEVER:

The disciples saw Jesus post resurrection multiple times. Their story - from which they never varied - was that Jesus Who had been whipped and crucified appeared to them multiple times after His death and burial. They did not report a man half dead who had miraculously survived (the Romans weren't amateurs at killing people) being nursed back to health but a Man Who rose from the dead and appeared to them multiple times but did not stay with them for treatment - or even seem to require any. They were convinced that He had been dead and was now alive again. they were so convinced that they were willing to die for that conviction. BUT the critical part is that they were eye witnesses under multiple circumstances and in groups - which makes the assumption of delusion itself delusional. They weren't dying for what others had told them but what they themselves had seen and knew to be true.

No human being can make that same claim for global warming - even those who have done extensive research are only reviewing data - they aren't eye witnesses to an incremental event. So while the person in question truly believed in the phenomena, it's not a comparable situation. Further,the disciples did not commit suicide - they were killed under persecution. Global warming is already main streamed - the suicide serves no rational purpose. I don't doubt the gentleman's veracity - I just grieve in the pointless death.

[Teallaura]

So you can't provide a reasonable, serious, non-stupid, can't-be-refuted-in-under-20-seconds argument for Christian theism either.

The Resurrection.

Didn't even take five seconds. Only an idiot would claim they can refute the Resurrection in 20 seconds or less.

[Teallaura]

He's got a Ph.D. in a hard science. That's about all I can say of it publicly, per his request. He's well above average in intelligence.

I think Jason used to have it in his sig line - a quotation to the effect that only really smart people can do some really stupid things.

[Teallaura]

You evince a singular lack of knowledge regarding Buddhism here. Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and their goal is to step off the cycle of rebirth, not perpetuate it.

You're correct, of course, but I think it's pedantic to Jim's point that the man believed life would continue.

[Teallaura]

The two main ones are masters in sociology/psychology, and a doctorate in philosophy.


Well, maybe that's the problem, I haven't seen Dimbulb do anything other than emote all over the place and put up some of the worst arguments against Christianity and worst abuses of scripture I've ever seen.

However, he does generally write well with proper spelling and punctuation, which is why I judge that he is of average intelligence. Maybe he displays an excellent intellect when discussing his field, but that certainly doesn't carry over into the areas of philosophy, theology, religion, and politics.

To be fair, hard sciences are poor prep for philosophy/theology and sometimes, logic (logic being born of the former). They don't always grasp the difference in argumentation. SoR does it to the opposite extreme - he's so solidly concrete rational that he doesn't grasp philosophy well at all. SL philosophizes from an intuitive, emotional POV - which is why he has lots of big words but can't connect the points of argumentation - he's almost invariably appealing to emotion or a related fallacy. It's not because he's dumb - it's because he's not realizing that he's making errors in a field not his own - it's a textbook 'smart people' mistake.

In Poli Sci we see it sometimes with 'hard' scientists that get so caught up in the stats that they can't understand the mechanisms. they can tear apart county by county results but have no idea why some counties caucus and others don't - or even what it means. But without understanding the mechanisms of voting, you get a skewed picture.

[Starlight]

Considering that his competition are folks like Jimmy, Tassman, and shuny, saying that he's "more intelligent" is a bit of a backhanded compliment.

You're not going to like this...

But I think TWeb actually has a surfeit of riches when it comes to highly intelligent atheist posters, and I think that Jimmy and Tassman are actually about a hundred times better than you give them credit for.

Jimmy likes to read the news and likes to post the latest democrat consensus talking point that he's got from MSNBC or NYT or wherever as his view in Civics. So he's mostly posting fairly mainstream and solid sensible statements. And in response he seems to get told he's an idiot even more than I do. I'm seen you MM and Sparko and a few others team up to tell him he's stupid for a whole page solid after he's posted some sort of run-of-the-mill not-particularly-controversial pan-standard Democrat-leaning opinion that any normal person would take from attentively listening to the news from a variety of sources. Jimmy doesn't do much at all in the way of controversial out-there opinions in the way I do, he tends to stick solidly to basic talking points and does it well. And yet you guys seem to still lose it in his direction on a regular basis... it's bizarre to watch.

Tassman varies between a Jimmy-like solid posting of standard news items from liberal sources and standard liberal views, to having developed some of his own views and defending them sensibly. Even when I don't agree with Tassman's views (e.g. on morality where he argues evolutionary herd behavior is the origin and center-point of it) he still sets forth his views in a totally intelligent and reasonable way that forces me to agree that he is intelligent and rational even when disagreeing with him.

And then there's people like Lao Tzu, and Carpedm, who have a well-educated background and are very informed and thoughtful and love calm rational point-by-point discussion.

Then there's the PhDs: Roy (IIRC), SoR, myself. Okay, us three do spend quite a lot of time mocking you guys, because we generally don't think much of you or your arguments, but you do have us.

So aside from the couple of trolls who I don't tend to pay attention to / understand their posts (FirstFloor and Whag) and Shunny (who says he's a buddhist), I would say all the regular atheist posters here are above average in intelligence and many of them in the top 1%. This site has managed to gain a selection of really high-quality atheist posters, far in excess of what I would say it deserves.

To be fair, hard sciences are poor prep for philosophy/theology and sometimes, logic (logic being born of the former). They don't always grasp the difference in argumentation.

I'll agree that there are certain field crossings that are unusual - e.g. between hard and soft sciences, or between sciences and arts. The combination of fields I majored in was quite unusual for pretty much that reason. One of my majors was in philosophy by the way.

SL philosophizes from an intuitive, emotional POV - which is why he has lots of big words but can't connect the points of argumentation

It's not because he's dumb - it's because he's not realizing that he's making errors in a field not his own

Well I'll agree with the part where I don't realize I'm making errors. I suggest the reason for that is because I'm not actually making any errors. And I'll point out again that I did a major in philosophy, so do you want to revise your claim that I'm outside my field, and perhaps claim I'm dumb instead?

Honestly I've come to view these sorts of claims from conservative Christians on this forum as being a kind of psychological defense mechanism. If someone has a view they don't like, then that person must be either dumb or uniformed, and so there follows a wild oscillation between the two assertions.

[MaxVel]

Honestly I've come to view these sorts of claims from Christians on this forum as being a kind of psychological defense mechanism. If someone has a view they don't like, then that person must be either dumb or uniformed, and so there follows a wild oscillation between the two assertions.

and

All the arguments for Christian theism are stupid.

None of them are reasonable. None of them are 'close' to right. None of them should be taken at all seriously. All of them are a joke.

You could have just said that you don't find any of the arguments convincing, and can't really understand why someone would be a Christian, but it's not completely unreasonable to be one. That you posted an undefensible broad brush claim shows that you aren't as smart as you think you are, and certainly not smarter than every Christian ever.

I don't think all atheists are stupid, or in denial, or motivated by not wanting to change their lifestyle. Some are very rational and intellectually honest in their atheism.

[Starlight]

You could have just said that you don't find any of the arguments convincing

Pretty sure that's what I said. You seem to be misreading my words to imply some sort of criticism of Christians as people, which wasn't there. I said the arguments for Christianity were all terrible IMO. I said nothing about Christians as people. And yet you added that into your reading of my words and then got really upset about it... why?

Are you feeling particular insecure and were triggered? At any rate, can you cease your weird demands that I not say the thing I didn't say, and also your bizarre claims that I'm stupid for saying it when I didn't say it?

[lilpixieofterror]

Pretty sure that's what I said. You seem to be misreading my words to imply some sort of criticism of Christians as people, which wasn't there. I said the arguments for Christianity were all terrible IMO. I said nothing about Christians as people. And yet you added that into your reading of my words and then got really upset about it... why? Are you feeling particular insecure and were triggered?

A great example of psychological projection.

[Starlight]

and certainly not smarter than every Christian ever.

It's curious that you guys seem to alternate between general critiques of smart people (explaining how otherwise smart people can get it wrong, etc) and referencing this idea of some sort of near-mythically-smart Christians who are out-there somewhere in history. The idea seems to be something vaguely along the lines of "if there was ever one truly, really, really smart person who was a Christian, then Christianity is therefore right or at least reasonable for everyone to believe" or that I, as an atheist, aren't worth listening to because I'm not as smart as the smartest Christians (whoever they were). It seems like a very bizarrely vague appeal to authority. Obviously I can't prove I'm as smart as unspecified Christians and you can't prove I'm not, and we get nowhere, and the question doesn't really strike me as a particularly relevant one in the first place.

[Roy]

Hello and welcome!

[Roy]

Then there's the PhDs: Roy (IIRC),

Affirmative. Computer Science, 1992. Thesis not only boring but on reflection embarrassingly naïve.

SoR, myself.

Also HMS_Beagle and Sylas. A while back there was nearly a dozen doctors posting in Nat Sci regularly.

[Mountain Man]

I think what it comes down is that it's very hard to distinguish between a smart person who happens to say or believe something stupid, and a genuinely stupid person. Given our limited interactions and limited topics of discussion on these forums, we may never get the opportunity to see a person in their best element, so we can develop a skewed perspective.

[firstfloor]

He was murdered by the Roman government at the request of Jewish leaders.

If Jesus had been condemned to death by the Jewish authorities but they were prevented from carrying out judicial execution, then it is possible that the Roman authorities took the matter into their own hands, if they felt that Jesus was a threat. It is not likely that they were executing Jews just to ingratiate themselves with the Jewish authorities.

David Buckel’s death is both extraordinary and honorable and the self-sacrifice ought to strike a chord of recognition with Christians.

In fact, Christians have devalued the death of Jesus by their resurrection myth; the temporary suffering of the man-god is joyfully celebrated for what Christians get out of the deal they suppose was made for their exclusive benefit.