World to end May 21st(this Saturday)

[Word]

The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris

Sam Harris just uses the Theodicy...

Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodizee

(Google Translator version of the German article)

[sinewav]

The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris

Sam Harris just uses the Theodicy...

And your point is? Also, I could only stand about 30 seconds of the amazing "knock-down-argument" that was fed to you while watching youtube (let youtube think for you too!). Sam Harris is a sophisticated writer and speaker. Please find an equally sophisticated and worthy source to refute his work, not some annoying 5 minute video with slow scrolling, barely readable un-formatted text and a "hip" music track. Ridiculous. The author might have a good point, but no one can know it due the the stupidity of his presentation.

[Word]

you can fastforward until the "verbal presentation" begins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE#t=1m38s

(I liked the first part more because I didn't like the speaker's voice lol)

[sinewav]

you can fastforward until the "verbal presentation" begins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE#t=1m38s

That's awesome, Word. It doesn't address a single thing we've talked about. You just went ahead and did the old ad hominem tu quoque. Try not to let youtube fight your battles anymore.

The clip I linked too doesn't offer any new revelation; it's the classic "problem of evil" argument. But Sam Harris eloquently phrases the problem in a way I haven't seen before, with a great emphasis on the visualization of suffering. It's quite dramatic. Here, I'll add my own idea on the problem of evil and why your god is a total ass...

The universe holds over a billion galaxies, each with over a billion stars (low estimate). That would take an amazing amount of power to create, obviously. If I had even a trillionth of god's power, I would immediately, without question, end suffering for all living beings on Earth forever. I would do this even if it meant going against God's plan and damning myself to hell for eternity. (Also, I would question the moral fiber of anyone who wouldn't end suffering immediately given the means, even in the face of damnation. Those who wouldn't have never experienced real suffering or are incapable of empathy.) Note: Jesus didn't even do this shit.

Yet, god in his infinite power and wisdom does nothing to ease the suffering of his creation. It's clear that your god is completely without compassion. A monster, unworthy of worship.


But then again, I don't know what I'm talking about because Jesus is Lord. It says so in the bible. If I could just just understand that Jesus is Lord I wouldn't be so confused. The bible would make perfect sense if I knew Jesus is Lord. Because he is Lord and the bible makes it so. Amen.

[Word]

It doesn't address a single thing we've talked about. You just went ahead and did the old ad hominem tu quoque. Try not to let youtube fight your battles anymore.

it's the classic "problem of evil" argument.

Sam Harris just uses the Theodicy...

Compare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodizee

(Google Translator version of the German article)

and i used the youtube link to prevent future references to Harris

edit: this one is more detailed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of ... theodicies

[Phytotron]

You show a perfectly logical statement to a four year-old and they think it's loony. They show you something rational and you think they're silly. Point of view. Rationality, like religion, doesn't actually exist. They're all beliefs.

Here lies an example of the fashionable nonsense that is postmodernism. OK, I contend that your brain is comprised of mashed potatoes and grape jelly, motivated by the mystical b-flat minor chordal frequencies existing in subspace. You can't tell me I'm wrong.

Better yet, I now know I no longer need to put any value whatsoever in any comment, opinion, criticism, or argument you make. Neato.

It is difficult to talk to most people about eastern religions since few people I come across know much about them. From a human rights perspective Hinduism is way more horrible than Islam

Word. I've long found it amusingly perplexing (or perplexingly amusing?) when certain hippy-dippy and new-agey types speak adoringly of Hinduism, how wonderful and enlightened it is as compared to the conservative, dogmatic Western Judeo-Christianity, all this. The appeal of which presumably originating from the sense of it being "exotic" and extra mystical (because growing up surrounded by the many absurdities of Christian supernaturalism has apparently become too common and boring). Don't know for sure, though, because the first words out of my mouth are always, "Are you serious? Do you know anything about Hinduism? Have you any idea the political, social, and economic conditions in India that derive primarily from Hinduism?" This, not even getting into the superstitious backwardness of that society.

I also avoid lumping in Buddhism and Daoism to the religion argument since there is a distinct philosophy intertwined with each....

One can do this with Christianity as well. The most prominent example I can think of off-hand would be the Jefferson Bible, where ol' T.J. literally took a razor to the Bible and cut out much of the supernaturalism and all references to Jesus's divinity, leaving the allegories, parables, etc. There are also the sizable offshoots of secular and atheistic Judaism and Hinduism. Unitarians often embrace atheists and agnostics, as well.

you can't be a Jewish Muslim

Well, considering Islam includes Noah, Adam, Abraham, Moses (and Jesus) as prophets.... Probably explains why, historically, Jews and Christians have received better treatment and tolerance (Word) under Islamic rule (e.g., the Ottoman Empire) than the reverse. Go figure.

The thing that makes [Buddhism] different from the others is both are atheistic and anti-supernatural

Wait, Buddhism contains plenty of supernaturalism/spiritualism/mysticism. Sure, you can decide to interpret much of it as metaphor (as many Christians do with even concepts of sin and hell), but it's there nonetheless.

I guess instead of saying monotheists, I could say "supernaturalists." How does that sound?

As an umbrella term, yeah. But, for a term collectively referring to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, "the Abrahamic religions" is usually used.

Thanks for calling me out on that one.

Oh, I wasn't calling you out. Just curious. Conceivably you could have had some argument favoring those other conceptions over monotheism.

The Christian experience becomes beautiful and blessed, when we realize how God is everything in life. Then, embracing a sense of being nothing to make way for God to be all seems completely natural. For Christians, this awareness of the nothingness of ourselves to experience the richness of life through God is the essence of humility.

...It's not complete powerlessness.

That's not humility; it's obsequious submission. Even putting that aside, stipulating a definition similar to your own, notions of humility, and its characterisation as a virtue, aren't anything close to approaching the sole or original purview of Christianity.

Religions aren't all the same....

No one here claimed they are. But if you do an actual, intensive, comprehensive comparison of the world's religions (or just read some good, unbiased comparative religion books), you'll find that many religions, including Christianity, not only share common themes and stories, but are influenced by, and even wholesale pinched from, preceding religions. This is especially true with religions that originated in the same part of the world. There are entire passages in the Bible that are completely ripped, almost word-for-word, from earlier religions. The flood story is a classic example. Indeed, the Bible is probably the most unoriginal religion around, rife with what can only be described as shameless plagiarism.

Mutation, Selection, And Vertical Transmission Of Theistic Memes In Religious Canons

Additionally, with respect to the morality and spiritualism of it: Humans evolved a moral sense—it's inherent, and not even remotely unique to humans. Humans also evolved a brain with built-in modules that incline it toward weird thinking. We have the inherent intellectual ability to create, invent, contrive concepts wholly in our minds. We seek to explain the unexplain[ed/able]. I also previously mentioned the documented human universals all cultures share. The combination of all these inherent mental characteristics, through something called gene-culture coevolution, produced religion.

Religious morality is one form of cultural codification of our inherent moral sense. Civil law is another. No surprise, then, that most governments over the history of civilisation have been, at least in some part, theocratic.

Where does Hinduism define tolerance as equality (as opposed to connivance....)?

Whence has Christianity?

Most supernatural events in the bible have a symbolic character, which I like.

Very many Christians would disagree with you. Most would argue varying degrees of literalism, inerrancy, and immutability.

And i like the moral values it promotes (tolerance, for example).

No idea where you get this from. Perhaps a perverse definition of "tolerance." That, and/or a misunderstanding and conflation of origin versus interpretive imbuement—what most people do with religion, whether they admit it or not. This has been repeated ad nauseam at this point, but your version of Christian morality differs greatly from that of many other Christians', and theirs from others'.

There's no other (atheist) institution that promoted (and still promotes) these values...

Bullshit. Ignorant, prejudicial bullshit.

...which were were never self-evident.

Well, damn, there goes the US Declaration of Independence. Thanks.

So many European scientists, thinkers and discoverers in Christian countries existed and found out more than inventors from other continents in the same amount of time because their religion gave them enough room and motivation to do so (there are scientists like Galilei who lived at a time when everything in the bible was still taken literally, but Galilei is said to have been a deeply religious man as well so it's not really a counter example).

Wow. Just wow. You really need to get your history straight, and read not through the lens of Christian apologetics and historical revisionism. A good place to start? How about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age]The Islamic Golden Age. While your religious predecessors had regressed and were stuck in the Dark Ages, the Muslims were laying the intellectual foundations for the modern world. "The Muslims actually came pretty damn close to sharing all this brilliance with the truly ass-backward kingdoms of Christian Europe, since the Islamic caliphates blanketed every country they conquered with schools, libraries, public works and the most comprehensive system of social welfare on the planet. In fact, the case has been made that if the caliphates succeeded in conquering all of Europe an Italian Renaissance would have been unnecessary."


I'm not even going to look at your stupid video.

But then again, I don't know what I'm talking about because Jesus is Lord. It says so in the bible. If I could just just understand that Jesus is Lord I wouldn't be so confused. The bible would make perfect sense if I knew Jesus is Lord. Because he is Lord and the bible makes it so. Amen.

Hallowed are the Ori. Hallowed are we.


EDIT: Grr, edit to explain edit of expanding on "religions aren't all the same" response.

[Word]

Where does Hinduism define tolerance as equality (as opposed to connivance....)?

Whence has Christianity?

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

“Judge not, that you be not judged.

And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There are more.

"In fact, the case has been made that if the caliphates succeeded in conquering all of Europe an Italian Renaissance would have been unnecessary."

They didn't.

[Phytotron]

Oh look, more pointless quotations we've all heard before, but few Christians abide. I knew that was coming. You damn well know there are plenty of quotations—including ones I've already quoted, and yes, even in the New Testament alone—that will contradict those. (And, really, you don't want to get into the ones regarding the Jews.) You just refuse to acknowledge them, or you arbitrarily explain them away.

Not to mention all the other Christians who through their own teachings and actions would contradict any consistent concept of "tolerance." You included, I'm sure.

You don't get it. How many ways do I have to say this? You choose to believe the interpretation you want to believe.

Who is a Christian?

"In fact, the case has been made that if the caliphates succeeded in conquering all of Europe an Italian Renaissance would have been unnecessary."

They didn't.

Wow, good one. Just like Titanoboa did after I hit him up with quotations, and so many of you kids tend to do in general. You get shown your ignorance, lose an argument, and just deflect it with some smart-assed remark or joke.

[sinewav]

...distinct philosophy intertwined with each....

...the Jefferson Bible...

Cool, I seem to remember hearing about this before. Forgot I guess. This is something I can get behind. I'm one of those people (like Richard Dawkins) who loves Jesus but has no stomach for Christianity.

The thing that makes [Buddhism] different from the others is both are atheistic and anti-supernatural

Wait, Buddhism contains plenty of supernaturalism/spiritualism/mysticism.

Yeah I hate all that crap. Most of it is cultural artifacts of Hinduism. The core part of the Buddhist practice finds the metaphysical stuff a total waste of time. Even the 14th Dali Lama recently shrugged his shoulders are the idea he is the reincarnation of the 13th and said "that's what they say. it doesn't matter if it's true or not, compassion is what's important." (I should look for that article...). You'll find this attitude in Buddhist writing all the time. This is, of course, wildly different from "the Abrahamic religions" where it's necessary for biblical events to have occurred. In Buddhism, saying "f**k buddha" actually gets you closer to enlightenment, haha. Crazy.

Sadly, the countries with Buddhism as their primary religion are often pretty wretched places. Buddhism may free a spirit here and there, but as an organized religion it's no better than the others.

[Phytotron]

Blarg. Many edits on my two previous posts. Some good stuff, too.

[sinewav]

...and i used the youtube link to prevent future references to Harris

edit: this one is more detailed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of ... theodicies

Yeah, you really don't get it. Here, let me show you where you messed up.

1) You said "i like the moral values [Christianity] promotes (tolerance, for example)."

2) I said "I can't tell if your last post was supposed to be a joke or not."

3) You edit your post then answer about questions other than morality.

4) I "get" your point, then go on to point out that "Christian morality" is kind of an oxymoron by submitting the "problem of evil" through a video of Sam Harris.

5) You post something arguing that Sam Harris doesn't know what what he's talking about then rambling about "Theodicy," (...but I don't think you really understand what theodicy is because you are using it in the wrong context.)

6) I bring the discussion back to the problem of evil with my own contribution.

7) See #5.

So, you don't have anything to add? Is Christianity moral if it comes from an amoral creator? And forget about Sam Harris; you're already a bit confused I see.

[Word]

You don't get it. How many ways do I have to say this? You choose to believe the interpretation you want to believe.

Camping or you have their own version. I'm happy with mine.

You just refuse to acknowledge them, or you arbitrarily explain them away.

The bible wasn't written by God, and this seems like a description of the crusade's predecessor or a natural catastrophe the authors couldn't explain in another way. All texts in the bible were written by authors, and they weren't as perfect as Jesus. Every priest can tell you that "the Jews" don't refer to the entire religion but to the crowd that cheered while Jesus was crucified. What the Nazis made out of it is another story. You know that they also (ab)used philosophers'/artists' (Nietsche; C.D. Friedrich) works to promote their ideology. Jesus himself was a Jew and the Jewish crowd that enjoyed the crucifixion could easily be compared with Hitler's followers as well.

Wow, good one. Just like Titanoboa did after I hit him up with quotations, and so many of you kids tend to do in general. You get shown your ignorance, lose an argument, and just deflect it with some smart-assed remark or joke.

Well, after their Golden Age was over they didn't shoot ahead of our part of the world for the next 700 years.

So, you don't have anything to add? Is Christianity moral if it comes from an amoral creator? And forget about Sam Harris; you're already a bit confused I see.

Let youtube think for me.

[Phytotron]

You know that they also (ab)used philosophers'/artists' (Nietsche; C.D. Friedrich) works to promote their ideology.

Dude. Art history. Take some. Learn of the overwhelming amount of European art that was commissioned and directed by the Church. Indeed, artists couldn't practice without direction, with their paintings, sculptures, and musical compositions being overseen and either accepted or rejected by priests. Many of those artists would have rather been doing other subject matter (as evidenced by material they had to keep secret, only to be discovered after their deaths; as well as stuff that some snuck into their works in order to give a sly "f#@* you" to the Church), but had no choice but to advance Catholicism, or the Anglican Church, or whatever. Even during the Renaissance.

Wow, good one. Just like Titanoboa did after I hit him up with quotations, and so many of you kids tend to do in general. You get shown your ignorance, lose an argument, and just deflect it with some smart-assed remark or joke.

Well, after their Golden Age was over they didn't shoot ahead of our part of the world for the next 700 years.

You don't get it. That wasn't the point. You're just making fallacious arguments. Canards, red herrings, non-sequiturs, yadda yadda. Your claim was as follows: "So many European scientists, thinkers and discoverers in Christian countries existed and found out more than inventors from other continents in the same amount of time because their religion gave them enough room and motivation to do so." This is historically inaccurate on two levels. First, of encouragement, nourishment, and "tolerance" to let them pursue their art and studies; and second, the claim of "more in the same amount of time." The Islamic Golden Age is one glaring example providing evidence to counter all that. Moreover, the actual history of, say, the Dark Ages, or the counter-Reformation, destroys it as well. As does what I noted above. You completely skipped that part of it, took the final quote, and only replied—fallaciously—to that. You even missed the point of that final line: Had your Church not completely shut down and reversed all progress in thought, science, and art, the Renaissance wouldn't have even been necessary. Instead, you make some completely unrelated, snide remarks amounting to "the Muslims lost and they're backwards ragheads now."

And besides all that, even if you were correct, it doesn't mean a goddamn thing. It was a complete non-sequitur, having nothing to do with the debate at that moment. Just some random willy wagging about the superiority of Christian culture—when sinewav was asking about the validity of the religion itself in the context of comparative religion. Saying, "we produced a lot of science and art," even if true, doesn't answer that in any way. Additionally, as has already been said, it doesn't matter how many smart or talented people believe(d) in something.


Argh. It's impossible discussing or debating anything with you. You've exhausted me. I quit.