Originally posted by firstfloor
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostMost of the population (Christian, atheists, etc) simply are not informed and have limited critical thinking skills.
I challenge you to pick your favorite or the most "impactful" argument from the God Delusion and I am willing to bet that I can rip it to pieces."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAnd he got taken in by The God Delusion.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostIf I said you have the wit of an imbecile I would unfortunately be insulting imbeciles.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI have a degree in philosophy and experience in apologetics and have spent 15 years reading online arguments about religion,
I had a bachelor's degree in biochemistry. When I went to graduate school, I realized that I knew next to nothing about biochemistry.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI am sure you could rip it to pieces in your imagination though.
Are you going to use the one about complexity coming from simplicity? the ultimate jumbo jet?
This isn't a worldview thing...this is a bad argument thing. It is not like the only people ripping on TGD's arguments are theists.
Furthermore, I am also quick to point out bad arguments for theism or I can list atheistic arguments that give me pause. Just so you know that I am being objective.Last edited by element771; 01-11-2017, 03:17 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostNot to mention his patent inability to even remotely accurately describe orthodox Christian beliefs.
Me: "You know that in some parts of the world most Christians are fine with abortion right? And that not everyone shares the US evangelical obsession with it?"
Various nutters on this forum: "He has no idea what orthodox Christian beliefs are!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I literally spent years studying the differences between different denominations and what different Christian groups throughout history believed and studying how and why those teachings changed over time and what the key arguments were in each period. And whenever I mention on this forum that there have ever existed any Christians who believed anything different from whatever a Christian poster on this forum happened to learn at their local church, they start screaming that I have no idea about Christian beliefs. It's pretty pathetic really.
Although such behavior is somewhat understandable given that this forum does try pretty hard to be a "safe space" for people with a very particular viewpoint on Christianity - any new Christian posters with the 'wrong' views are quickly banned from the Christian-only sections of the site and have their faith designation forcibly changed to not say "Christian" - so the site has developed into quite a self-reinforcing bubble that extols a very particular view of what Christian beliefs should be and does not tolerate any dissent from that kindly. So I guess I am transgressing that boundary whenever I comment that other Christians in history or the present have had other views or other interpretations, and thus people get upset and I am accused of "not knowing" the "orthodox" (i.e. TWeb-approved) interpretation/view. Although I regularly find it bizarre that my not agreeing with 'orthodoxy' is repeatedly conflated by posters with the idea of my not knowing its teachings. And thus there's this really strange meme that circulates around the nutters here claiming that I don't know or misdescribe orthodox teachings."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View Postany new Christian posters with the 'wrong' views are quickly banned from the Christian-only sections of the site and have their faith designation forcibly changed to not say "Christian"
I am a Christian.
I am also a physicalist (no souls)
I am also an annihilationist (no hell).
I am an orthodox preterist (no rapture).
I am politically liberal.
I think humans evolved from lower life forms.
The earth is 4.6 billion year old with the universe being 13-15 billion years old.
I am pretty much the antithesis of the stereotypical evangelical Christian yet I have never been challenged once.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostI don't know about this one.
I am a Christian.
I am also a physicalist (no souls)
I am also an annihilationist (no hell).
I am an orthodox preterist (no rapture).
I am politically liberal.
I think humans evolved from lower life forms.
The earth is 4.6 billion year old with the universe being 13-15 billion years old.
I am pretty much the antithesis of the stereotypical evangelical Christian yet I have never been challenged once.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostWhat type of degree?
I had a bachelor's degree in biochemistry. When I went to graduate school, I realized that I knew next to nothing about biochemistry.
Then accept the challenge.
That strikes me as an inherently reasonable general goal for the book. I live in a country where about half the population says they are non-religious, and where political leaders and average people alike are quite happy describing themselves as "atheist" when asked, so it seems an obvious matter of fact to me that 'normal' people can be atheists and that this is a possible way to identify oneself. But I totally understand that in some countries there is a much much higher percentage of religious people and many people in those countries don't really fully grasp that being an 'atheist' is something that is truly plausible for them.
Do you have an objection to this primary purpose that he lays out for the book? Sure it's not a "philosophical argument", but I feel that trying to read the book as if it were a collection of philosophical arguments is getting the genre wrong - I feel that what Dawkins is gifted at is consistently making really good observations and comments that are obviously true. The book, to my mind, is a very well chosen set of obviously accurate observations and comments that show that being an atheist is perfectly plausible. That said, those times in the book where he does touch on philosophical arguments, in the chapters about arguments for god, arguments on design, and morality etc, I do think he nails it, so we can discuss those I guess when I get to them. But perhaps you have some comments about his basic goal for his book?"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI guess having any amount of qualifications is always open to the criticism that one doesn't have more. My phd is in a science field rather than philosophy and my philosophy degree is an undergraduate degree, but imagining I had done my phd in philosophy (which I seriously considered doing and was encouraged to do by a lecturer) surely unless I'd actually done the phd in the right kind of philosophy it wouldn't really have been relevant?
Originally posted by Starlight View Post~shrug~ I've just started rereading The God Delusion since people here seem to want to talk about that. In the preface, Dawkins lays out that his primary goal in the book is to help people realize that viewing themselves as an "atheist" is a serious option for them in their lives. He is concerned that there are a lot of people out there who say things like "well I'm a Christian but I'm not really religious and I don't really believe in God" who, due to social pressures or possible misconceptions about "atheism" haven't really even entertained the notion that they might want to think of themselves as an "atheist". He wants to take "atheism" from being an intellectual notion these people have along the lines of "I'm aware that there's this thing called 'atheism' and know there's some people out there who call themselves 'atheists'... but they're unhappy people with no sense of fulfillment in their lives right?" to viewing atheism as either something they already subscribe to or at least viewing it as a serious live option for people to be atheists in substantial numbers. To achieve this general goal, Dawkins is going throughout the book to go through the various hang-ups that people often have that make them feel that they can't really be atheists or that being an atheist is impossible.
That strikes me as an inherently reasonable general goal for the book. I live in a country where about half the population says they are non-religious, and where political leaders and average people alike are quite happy describing themselves as "atheist" when asked, so it seems an obvious matter of fact to me that 'normal' people can be atheists and that this is a possible way to identify oneself. But I totally understand that in some countries there is a much much higher percentage of religious people and many people in those countries don't really fully grasp that being an 'atheist' is something that is truly plausible for them.
Do you have an objection to this primary purpose that he lays out for the book? Sure it's not a "philosophical argument", but I feel that trying to read the book as if it were a collection of philosophical arguments is getting the genre wrong - I feel that what Dawkins is gifted at is consistently making really good observations and comments that are obviously true. The book, to my mind, is a very well chosen set of obviously accurate observations and comments that show that being an atheist is perfectly plausible. That said, those times in the book where he does touch on philosophical arguments, in the chapters about arguments for god, arguments on design, and morality etc, I do think he nails it, so we can discuss those I guess when I get to them. But perhaps you have some comments about his basic goal for his book?
I have a real problem about how he uses science as a philosophy. What I mean by that is that he thinks that science is inherently atheistic. In one sense, I agree as science is based on a methodological naturalism. On the other hand, to claim that science naturally leads to atheism is a ridiculous claim.
Knock yourself out if you want to be an atheist but if you are going to be an atheist, it should be based on sound arguments and not the ones put forth in TGD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View Post
Knock yourself out if you want to be an atheist but if you are going to be an atheist, it should be based on sound arguments and not the ones put forth in TGD.
Comment
-
Originally posted by firstfloor View PostAtheism makes no claim therefore requires no justification. It is a position about being unconvinced of someone else's claim.
If I make the claim that there are no apples in the barrel, you would be justified in asking me for justification of my position. Claiming that there is no God (A-theism) is a claim, even if it is a negative one.
I never understood this position other than to simply get out of the need for justification. I believe that any belief should be backed with justification.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
67 responses
321 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 01:36 PM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
158 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
107 responses
588 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 09:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
252 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment