Somehow I get a very hostile tone from this text. If your purpose was not to discredit philosophy or philosophers I think you somehow failed.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Atheism vs Theism |OT|
- Thread starter GTP_Daverytimes
- Start date
- Status
Somehow I get a very hostile tone from this text. If your purpose was not to discredit philosophy or philosophers I think you somehow failed.
Buckethead
Banned
There are few debaters that impress me less than Lennox, tbh.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
So I handle something I don't enjoy in this way while still acknowledging its good, and you decide it is then appropriate to use it to directly contradict what I had clarified to frame me as having a negative purpose against philosophy that I directly stated I do not have? I don't see how that is the same or how it makes sense to do. A good example of interaction in response is right here in how iapetus handled it.
Something very important when reading posts by me is that if something seems contradictory by your interpretations, try to assume that I didn't actually contradict myself and your interpretation of one part was incorrect. Since I very much try to not contradict myself, I try to do this with everyone, and only take a negative understanding if the full context of their words leaves me no choice. Yet even in this case, I try to explain the contradiction I see, as iapetus did, so they can clarify. There is a big difference between doing this and simply making statements of heavily weighted judgements of them apart from the statement that made me think such of them.
*sigh* Okay I will directly break down that post for you guys and then I am done with this.
"Something" meaning a topic of discussion. And "relevant" is a highly important word here. It means that the things being discussed are directly and immediately applicable and useful, not merely theoretical and potentially useful or good.
This does seem to be the most common case to me. It is very often someone playing devil's advocate for no reason but to be a dick or push an issue past what was a decided consensus. Note that I never said this individual was a philosopher himself, however his questions, no matter what attitude in which they are asked, then become the topic of genuine philosophical study.
I already explained what I meant by this. Many people do consider them strange for dedicating themselves to working these things out. As for the "no other option" such has also been true plenty of times. People in the lows of their life, constrained by an oppressor, or forced to solve a problem that can't be brushed off anymore. It happens all the time.
A restatement of the notion that this is a difficult process most are not willing to take on because to most it is not enjoyable. Here I am not referring only to philosophers (which is why I said "people"), but anyone who wants to intentionally use philosophy in a practical way.
Can't because a direct use requires educating everyone involved with the philosophies and how those directly relate to what they are doing. This sort of education is often too difficult to do, but you can work a philosophy throughout your materials and practices and it is kind of absorbed by people naturally.
Meaning philosophy has been used to motivate all sorts of movements in the world. Some were good, some were terrible, some were silly. This is a fact, and if you choose to focus only on the negative things to think that I meant philosophy only results in those, that is your fault.
Okay that is it. I am done with this. These were clarifications of my intentions, but I do not state them so as to mean I do not understand you guys. I get it. Overall it came off negative (which was merely to express my personal distaste for the exercise), so people chose a negative interpretation of every single part. Your communication of this to me has been received. Can we drop it now since I never intended it to be an argument against philosophy or anyone who enjoys it? This has been a very annoying misunderstanding.
Listened through the latter one.
Dawkins schooled Lennox on almost every single point. Seriously, Lennox was cranking out schoolboy arguments that have been dealt with countless times
"Belief that complex comes from simple is your faith"
"Mind can't arise from matter"
"DNA is language, and only minds can create language"
"You can't explain this gap, therefore God!"
"Sometimes God speaks in 'special ways' we aren't supposed to understand"
"Jesus literally rose from the dead as a matter of history"
"If there is no God, then there is no ultimate justice. How terrible would that be?"
"Faith is based on evidence"
"We have evidence, it's all around us"
The guy reminded me of a less smug, less scripted Ray Comfort.
For anybody contemplating watching this video, don't waste your time. The only thing you'll learn is not to watch Lennox debate.
BruiserBear
Banned
At some point I realized there isn't a single religious based argument that holds any weight. Debates like this are just boring. What new ideas am I going to hear? What new evidence is someone going to present for god? It's silly.
I'll just quote Harris:
If someone doesnt value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence.
If someone doesnt value logic, what logical argument would you invoke to prove they should value logic?
BruiserBear
Banned
Harris is a boss.
Christianity's master stroke is positioning faith as a virtue. Great forward planning against the Scientific Method.
Dude Abides
Banned
The next best thing?
What's the next best thing?
First name a person that doesn't value evidence at all.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Do you mean in every facet of their lives?
In the context of religious beliefs I would say a large percentage of people don't value evidence. One of Theist GAF's favourite apologists is William Lane Craig and this is what he thinks about evidence:
"witness of the Holy Spirit is an intrinsic defeater-defeater for anyone who attends to it."
(In relation to evidence dismissing Jesus' divinity) "we can be confident that no such discovery will ever be made because we have the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit that Jesus is risen."
"Given the witness of the Spirit, no such evidence could be forthcoming."
What does that mean in plain English?
BruiserBear
Banned
Jesus is special, so no one can ever disprove he's the son of god, because he's special.
There won't ever be evidence to disprove ? [I don't even know what the assertion is] because God is on their side? Is that it?
Hi I am new here and like the atheist vs. religion debate.
I don't have the time to read through everything so what are the currently talked about issues?
Has this broken down into a dominant majority that kicks out the other opinion through force of will. What are the prevailing thoughts among the Neogaf theists and NeoGaf athiests on this thread?
I don't have the time to read through everything so what are the currently talked about issues?
Has this broken down into a dominant majority that kicks out the other opinion through force of will. What are the prevailing thoughts among the Neogaf theists and NeoGaf athiests on this thread?
Sutton Dagger
Member
Well apparently the 'holy spirit' has confirmed the validity of Jesus' divinity and thus any evidence to the contrary is invalid.
Sutton Dagger
Member
Essentially Theists have made some claims about the existence of a supernatural being, they haven't provided sufficient evidence thus far, so there is no reason to believe them.
Dude Abides
Banned
Why don't you just explain what you mean instead of playing at Internet Socrates?
It was a stupid quote with circular reasoning. Forgive me for trying to get you to challenge it.
Wah? Don't you understand what Harris's point is, there?
Whereas Atheists claim there is nothing there, and claim lack of evidence is sufficient for this to be true.
I do.
Well apparently the 'holy spirit' has confirmed the validity of Jesus' divinity and thus any evidence to the contrary is invalid.
this make my head spin.
archnemesis
Member
Almost all of the atheists on this forum are agnostic atheists, and not assuming to know anything about the unknown should be the default position.
Dude, are you suddenly new here?
Why are you talking about circular reasoning, then?
And what was that "next best thing", anyway?
Sutton Dagger
Member
Who is doing that in this thread? We aren't getting into the 'burden of proof' facet of the discussion again are we?
I bet you're having a nice chuckle about your "Atheists claim nothing exists" remark, right?
The expression of doubt.
There are hardly anyone who doesn't value evidence at all, but if there were, I suspect the expression of doubt, is the next best thing.
Who is doing that in this thread? We aren't getting into the 'burden of proof' facet of the discussion again are we?
I bet you're having a nice chuckle about your "Atheists claim nothing exists" remark, right?
You know me too well sutton.
Is there any doubt Harris was talking about religious apologists? And you've been given an example of a famous one, often championed in this very topic, who flat out said evidence would always be trumped by "the holy spirit", no matter what. Harris's quote applies, there (sadly enough).
Sutton Dagger
Member
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Ashes, man, edit button
Is that your understanding of the quote? My understanding was that there won't be any evidence to the contrary, due to god's support I guess. It's a difficult quote to unravel.
Have you any clearer example?
I can offer one I suppose. How about a theoretical Faith healing type X? Even if study z proves faith healing doesn't work, person A won't listen to it and try faith healer type X.
All a friend of person A is left with is to express doubt I guess.
see, I understand what the quote [Harris's] means, no?
Ashes, man, edit button
Ok, you have me there.
Dude Abides
Banned
I forgive you. Thank you for stating your objection as I dont feel like playing 20 questions. Could you further explain how the reasoning is circular? It doesn't seem so to me.
It really isn't. He claims they have "the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit". Basically, they know it's true, and any argument to the contrary would therefore have to be flawed in one way or another.
His assertion is that you can't present evidence/logic to someone who doesn't value evidence/logic that proves the value of evidence.
I have a problem myself with evidentalism. Which is just an extension of cartesian doubt. for example doubting our ability to reason.
So what, you can't show me a study, that proves faith healer type x's techniques don't work? And that people can actually die in the wrong hands? Of course you can. don't be silly. I can be just as skeptical as the next person.
edit: I don't mean you, you. I mean you, as in the arguer presented, him: basically.
soul creator
Member
I don't think Harris was using that quote to "prove the value of evidence". He (like most people
) already see evidence as valuable, so the idea that "hey! evidence is useful in a discussion of whether something is real or not!" should not be a controversial one.
But, it just so happens that a lot of people suddenly forget the usefulness of evidence when it comes to religious beliefs specifically (even though they value evidence when they, say, open a door before trying to walk through it, for example. Or when they take their car to the mechanic. Or do pretty much anything that doesn't involve religious beliefs)
"The value of evidence" should be accepted by both sides in any discussion (not just religious ones), if they hope to have any kind of progress. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point? If one or both sides don't care about evidence, then they're just making up shit that sounds cool. Which can be fun to do sometimes, but it won't actually resolve anything, if we're talking about things that happen in reality.
Then again, there are people that apparently just don't care if the things they believe are true.
who are not pedantic philosophers, heh heh
this is where someone inevitably says "believing evidence is useful is a faith-based argument! How do you justify that!"
But, it just so happens that a lot of people suddenly forget the usefulness of evidence when it comes to religious beliefs specifically (even though they value evidence when they, say, open a door before trying to walk through it, for example. Or when they take their car to the mechanic. Or do pretty much anything that doesn't involve religious beliefs)
"The value of evidence" should be accepted by both sides in any discussion (not just religious ones), if they hope to have any kind of progress. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point? If one or both sides don't care about evidence, then they're just making up shit that sounds cool. Which can be fun to do sometimes, but it won't actually resolve anything, if we're talking about things that happen in reality.
Then again, there are people that apparently just don't care if the things they believe are true.
Religion on one side. Science on the other.
Superlative argument.
Closer to rationality on one side, celebrated irrationality on the other.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
Harris wasn't trying to prove the value of evidence. He was trying to prove the obvious connection between science and values.
When it comes to the debate here, I see pretty much the same level of irrationality from both sides at times.
That has nothing to do with the context in which I made that statement, nor does it undermine the validity of it (even if it were true).
Maybe not directly (the context is hidden a few posts back), but it's a point that bears repeating. A lot of people see this as a debate between irrational theism and rational atheism, but a lot of the atheists are willing to throw away rationality for this debate.
As for 'even if it were true', I shall assume that you failed to read and/or understand what I wrote. If not, then fuck you.
Could you give some examples?
Chaplain
Member
I am sorry to hear that. I actually enjoyed both Dawkin's & Shermer's points of view, and found it interesting to know why they believe what they do. I think if Lennox wasn't impressive, Michael, Richard, or Christopher Hitchens wouldn't have debated them. They must at some point respect John for his knowledge in his related fields.
The following debates might or might not interest you, but here are some more.
Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox - Is God Great? [2009] @ Samford University
Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate @ Biola University
THE EXISTANCE of God, Debate between Oxford Duelling Professors, Peter Atkins vs John Lennox.
The God Debate II: Sam Harris vs. William Craig @ the University of Notre Dame
The God Debate: Hitchens vs. D'Souza @ the University of Notre Dame
Does God Exist? (Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens) @ Virginia Commonwealth University
The Science vs. God Debate
I hope these debates spark some dialogue between those who are atheists, and those that are theists. Since we are all on the quest for truth, we should all be open to the evidence we find regardless where it takes us.
You claim a lot of the atheists, in this thread, are willing to throw away rationality in debate? I don't see it.
Wow.
Game Analyst said:
You keep saying things like that, but demonstrate a lack of examining the evidence yourself.
Meanwhile, you assert the Bible as evidence. In the context of the Scientific Method, the Bible does not meet the standard for 'evidence'. It does not even come close. If you take that off the table then, what evidence do you purport to validate your faith? What evidence should non believers be considering that you consider they are not?
How often have I seen "Dawkins refuses to debate xxxx because he's scared!"... Guess religious apologists are impressive no matter what. ^^
Sounds good. Unfortunately, one side seems to have a lot of issues, when it comes to evidence...
Yes, that was my first response when you accused me of lying about what I have seen on NeoGAF at times. Followed by 'fuck you', followed by 'I shall assume he didn't read what I wrote'.
I never accused you of lying. But you are either exaggerating or blind to the reality. Perhaps you might consider that worse than being accused of lying.
Regardless, what an uncivil response on your behalf.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
1-2 hour long debates aren't a good forum for discovering the truth anyway.
They are more about showing off and capturing the audience's attention through the use of gimmicks rather than reasoned arguments. You are due to the format limited due to an inability to research the validity of any statements your opponent make, being instead limited to either accepting what they say as a matter of fact, counter it with prepared material, or ignore it altogether.
That's why I much prefer reading these discussions online, where it's obvious when your argument has already been raised and countered in the past to the extent that it no longer is relevant. So instead of wasting an hour on a rebuttal of an old argument, we can focus on finding new arguments.
With that said, there doesn't seem to be any new arguments
So the purpose of the thread is really to enlighten newcomers of the past discussions that have been had on the subject.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll