DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: William Wallace on February 11, 2012, 10:20:45 AM
-
Article (https://www.policymic.com/articles/4102/persecuted-atheists-in-america-need-a-new-perspective)
...in a country where religious liberty is enshrined in our founding documents, we don't know what it means to be persecuted for our religious beliefs, or lack thereof. To be sure, there are anecdotes about individuals of many different religious persuasions facing discrimination to some degree. Generally speaking, however, we have it well in America. Indeed, that's why we argue about mundane issues like prayer in school, or what our holidays are called, and don't kill each other.
-
Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.
-
Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.
I thought about that, but they don't get there without people buying their books and coming to their lectures.
-
Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.
I agree with this.
-
Yeah, I wouldn't say atheists are persecuted in America. But there is absolutely prejudice, arguably more so thanagainst any other minority group, and I doubt it has much to do with "the way atheists present themselves."
-
I don't feel persecuted, but barely anyone I know is aware that I don't believe in God, and there's a reason for that.
-
I wouldn't call it persecution by any means, but I've always been quite annoyed that to get elected to any office in this country, you have to feign belief in something for the benefit of a constituency feigning similar beliefs.
-
I wouldn't call it persecution by any means, but I've always been quite annoyed that to get elected to any office in this country, you have to feign belief in something for the benefit of a constituency feigning similar beliefs.
This can work in the other direction too. What it amounts to is what the voters accept and (most) voters accept religion and a belief in a God. Should that matter? Well, if it matters that a religious person is in office, then I guess the religious have a right to complain similarly when an atheist is in office, wouldn't you think. In my opinion, when it comes to "this" country, it really shouldn't matter, but for some reason, "it does matter". :huh:
-
More people will vote for a gay person than an atheist.
Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.
I thought about that, but they don't get there without people buying their books and coming to their lectures.
And do I really need I find all that's spewed stuff that comes out of some religious leaders about atheists an their immorality?
I know you love the market, so anything that does well on the market is thereby approved. But people could read the book, and disagree with him on some of his points. Personally, never read the man, don't care enough to reaffirm why I don't believe in a religious view of "god"
-
I don't feel persecuted, but barely anyone I know is aware that I don't believe in God, and there's a reason for that.
It is amazing how people, once they hear you leaning are such and such will try to bring you to their side. I find that it's the zealots that turn me off on a lot of subjects.
-
I can not help to see the irony in this article, which in the end, attempts to justify the bias (discrimination?) against atheists by declaring it a non-issue. Thus indirectly enforcing the thing you declare to not exist.
rumborak
-
Don't really get the point of this article.. what's the take home message? Atheists shouldn't whine about not getting an atheist president? I think atheists realize this... have you seriously heard any complains about this in the media ? :huh:
Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.
I thought about that, but they don't get there without people buying their books and coming to their lectures.
eh.. so I can use the Pope as a spokesperson for Christianity? lots of people buy his books and come to his lectures.
-
I think it would be better to say that Jerry Falwell is the spokesperson for Christianity, due to his books and 'outspoken views.'
I mean, he didn't get there without people buying his books.
-
Don't really get the point of this article.. what's the take home message? Atheists shouldn't whine about not getting an atheist president? I think atheists realize this... have you seriously heard any complains about this in the media ? :huh:
I've read several stories, and I quoted one the Financial Times ran last week.
-
Don't really get the point of this article.. what's the take home message? Atheists shouldn't whine about not getting an atheist president? I think atheists realize this... have you seriously heard any complains about this in the media ? :huh:
I've read several stories, and I quoted one the Financial Times ran last week.
alright, it seems to me that you are the one who's blowing these 'atheists' articles out of proportion. The FT article you mentioned talks about personal stories of atheists who are looked down upon by their Christian neighbours (in a similar way as has happened with gays)... and you use this as ammunition to say that atheists shouldn't complain because people in other countries are being killed because of their religion? what?
-
I think it would be better to say that Jerry Falwell is the spokesperson for Christianity, due to his books and 'outspoken views.'
I mean, he didn't get there without people buying his books.
Oh hell no.
-
exactly
-
Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.
I thought about that, but they don't get there without people buying their books and coming to their lectures.
Yes, and I imagine many of these people would be theists.
-
And has already been pointed out, one could point to Jerry Falwell, with equal justification, as the spokesman for the Christian faith.
-
People always knee-jerk on Dawkins but like it or not, "The Selfish Gene" was still a hallmark book on evolutionary biology. I know a lot of people like to relegate him to an atheist populist riding on the support of juvenile people who want to stick their middle finger to their religious upbringing, but it just ain't that. When you actually read his books you know he thought through a lot of the stuff he says, and there's a reason he's a member of the Royal Society.
rumborak
-
People always knee-jerk on Dawkins but like it or not, "The Selfish Gene" was still a hallmark book on evolutionary biology. I know a lot of people like to relegate him to an atheist populist riding on the support of juvenile people who want to stick their middle finger to their religious upbringing, but it just ain't that. When you actually read his books you know he thought through a lot of the stuff he says, and there's a reason he's a member of the Royal Society.
rumborak
His literary endeavors into science, evolution and biology are largely worthwhile and reputable. His pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-intellectual literary endeavors (I'm looking at you, The God Delusion) are intellectual offal.
-
Haven't read that one, so I'll reserve judgment. Interesting that Roger Penrose has the same but opposite problem. Brilliant mathematician whose brain somehow shuts down when he tried to shoehorn his particular version of a Creator into his books.
rumborak
-
People always knee-jerk on Dawkins but like it or not, "The Selfish Gene" was still a hallmark book on evolutionary biology. I know a lot of people like to relegate him to an atheist populist riding on the support of juvenile people who want to stick their middle finger to their religious upbringing, but it just ain't that. When you actually read his books you know he thought through a lot of the stuff he says, and there's a reason he's a member of the Royal Society.
rumborak
His literary endeavors into science, evolution and biology are largely worthwhile and reputable. His pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-intellectual literary endeavors (I'm looking at you, The God Delusion) are intellectual offal.
yup, I still think he should have published the god delusion under a different name. His reputation nowadays is damaging his goal.
-
I never read it, but I've actually heard good things about The God Delusion.
-
It's just preaching to the choir, really. No need to read it.
-
yup, a whole book filled with old over used arguments.
-
yup, a whole book filled with old over used arguments.
Speaking of which, is there an avant-garde in atheistic polemics?
-
in terms of 'arguments' in favour of atheism.. no not really, but there are enough books from atheists authors who do more than just list arguments and actually talk about the philosophical/sociological/political implications of atheism.
I actually have a lot of respect for Dawkins in terms of his biology books, they contain the single most convincing argument there is... Darwinism, and he does a great job of explaining the theory and its evidence.
-
yup, a whole book filled with old over used arguments.
Never mind that they are old or over used (if an argument is convincing and the conclusion flow coherently from the premises, no amount of time or repetitions will harm it); they are simply intellectually embarrassing and logically incoherent. The premises he outlines in his "arguments" don't even lead to the conclusions he states they do. It's embarrassing and excruciatingly ironic that he frequently accuses philosophers of "not learning the science" when they speak on scientific matters (while most philosophers actually do bother to "learn the science") yet he has the nerve to publish a book without "learning the philosophy."
-
yup, a whole book filled with old over used arguments.
Never mind that they are old or over used (if an argument is convincing and the conclusion flow coherently from the premises, no amount of time or repetitions will harm it); they are simply intellectually embarrassing and logically incoherent. The premises he outlines in his "arguments" don't even lead to the conclusions he states they do. It's embarrassing and excruciatingly ironic that he frequently accuses philosophers of "not learning the science" when they speak on scientific matters (while most philosophers actually do bother to "learn the science") yet he has the nerve to publish a book without "learning the philosophy."
I read the book but this was before my education in philosophy and theology and before learning any real academic disciple so I should really read it again, but almost *any* academic who mentions this book shakes their head, mostly because they cannot understand how someone can have and show academic discipline on one end and yet show an utter lack of academic discipline on the other. I've had some professors call Dawkins a paradox and one insofar basically said, if you want to learn how "not" to write philosophy, read The God Delusion. Also almost *all* of the arguments used have already been addressed through apologists and other theologians long before and that he doesn't really present anything ultimately *new*. Anytime the book comes up you can easily just refer them back to Johannes Drey, Augustine, Anselm or Thomas Aquinas and of course Aristotle.
-
Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
Who cares about building rapport and sympathy! The truth is the truth, it doesn't matter if someone sugar-coats if for you or not. There are plenty of softly-softly types of non-believers out there, and there's plenty of room for someone who is outspoken and knowledgeable, and confrontational. It's needed infact, to show that religion is not some subject immune from criticism or ridicule. Theists can feel free to complain all they like, to take offence at an inconsequential comment whilst ignoring the main point of the argument. I don't think the atheist team really wants people like that anyway.
-
People always knee-jerk on Dawkins but like it or not, "The Selfish Gene" was still a hallmark book on evolutionary biology. I know a lot of people like to relegate him to an atheist populist riding on the support of juvenile people who want to stick their middle finger to their religious upbringing, but it just ain't that. When you actually read his books you know he thought through a lot of the stuff he says, and there's a reason he's a member of the Royal Society.
rumborak
As a Christian who's read about half of The God Delusion, I don't really understand why people act like he's some kind of relentless asshole.
Mind you, he doesn't make any new points and does resort to simplistic arguments, but I don't find much of what he says offensive.
-
It's a shame Dawkins and Hitchens are 'spokesmen' for atheists when in reality most non-believers simply don't care about religion one way or the other.
Seriously, this.
-
@The General Point of This Thread
So black people in 1960 should just have been happy they weren't slaves? I'm not saying one way or another whether or not atheists are prosecuted, but in any case it is really dumb to use a "it could be worse" argument.
-
Similarly, bestselling author Christopher Hitchens often compared belief in God to blind faith in a totalitarian political leader and called religion "... violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry ..." In light of those comments, it shouldn't surprise atheists that the religious majority remains skeptical of them. Calling people you disagree delusional isn't a good way to build rapport or generate sympathy.
Who cares about building rapport and sympathy! The truth is the truth, it doesn't matter if someone sugar-coats if for you or not. There are plenty of softly-softly types of non-believers out there, and there's plenty of room for someone who is outspoken and knowledgeable, and confrontational. It's needed infact, to show that religion is not some subject immune from criticism or ridicule. Theists can feel free to complain all they like, to take offence at an inconsequential comment whilst ignoring the main point of the argument. I don't think the atheist team really wants people like that anyway.
It's allowable for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Atkins, etc to posit bitter, emotional, personal diatribes and personal biographical statements on why they hate religion.
It's not, however, allowable to parade their philosophically and intellectually embarrassing bile of books as a product of a sort of contemporary intelligentsia whom are in any position to even address arguments for the existence of God, much less attempt to formulate arguments against the existence of God themselves.
-
As a Christian who's read about half of The God Delusion, I don't really understand why people act like he's some kind of relentless asshole.
Mind you, he doesn't make any new points and does resort to simplistic arguments, but I don't find much of what he says offensive.
You must not remember the bitter attacks against religion that he bothers to write down in The God Delusion. The man wants to ban religion from the public square. He regularly equates religion to believing in fairy tales, Santa, etc, not to mention the bitter diatribes he hurls at religion and God at atheistic meetings or to the press.
-
parade their philosophically and intellectually embarrassing bile of books as a product of a sort of contemporary intelligentsia
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ohP5AYrm4I4/TRmTXO9m6AI/AAAAAAAAADA/IfH0g70TNSg/s1600/CT_Why%2Byou%2Bmad.jpg)
-
Omega you are a true warrior of god :metal :metal :metal :metal
-
Boots of righteousness! Sword of Scripture!!
rumborak
-
Haha the responses are quite cute, rumborak, ZBomber, but I don't even consider myself to be a fervently religious man.
Sorry for offending your infallible deitie - I mean philosophically and intellectually handicapped idols Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.
-
I've only delved into Dawkins' material, and while I believe he's mistaken, I woudn't call him "intellectually handicapped". I mean, is stubbornness an intellectual handicap? Not really, some stubbornness is necessary I think. But I really respect and relate to the way the man thinks.
As for Hitchens, I don't know too much about him, but isn't he more of a secular humanist/sociologist kind of guy? Whenever someone writes a book and says "religion is wrong" and proceeds by listing all the atrocities in the name of religion, I'm sorely disappointed. In Hitchens' debate with WL Craig, that was Hitchens' main point, so I'd say he's pretty much "intellectually handicapped".
-
What about the fact that Dawkins gave every imaginable excuse to avoid a debate with WLC when he made a tour to the UK? On various videos and on his website, Dawkins claims to be interested only in the truth, in engaging theists in debate and in any refutations of his God Delusion.
His actual actions illustrate a man who is embarrassed by his own publication and clings to atheism for mere pride.
-
Nah that just shows he's a coward. He's never been the best public presence, and WLC is really good at moving a crowd. I don't think it was because he is actually unable to respond to Craig's arguments. Except for the Kalaam Cosmological Argument/Argument from Contingency. I've never heard a good refutation to those arguments. He'd probably just start talking about teapots, TBH.
-
I am by no means defending Hawkins, but using the argument that he doesn't want to debate your favorite guy, is just ludicrous. To my knowledge Hawkins has debated many people. At some point it's enough and you just realize that talking to certain people is a waste of energy.
rumborak
-
To be clear, we're talking about Dawkins, rumborak.
But long story short is that a philosopher went to the UK and invited Dawkins to defend his own arguments (or lack thereof) in the God Delusion from his refutations of them. He avoided the meeting like the bubonic plague and for good reason, too. Dawkins would have been rendered a mumbling mess had he attended the debate.
-
Sorry yeah, Dawkins :lol
Honestly, the story you tell there sounds like the classic thing that happens to extreme characters that people shun. You can see the same argument with conspiracy theorists who can't get into conferences, and then proclaim it's because the attendees couldn't handle the questions.
The fact that this dude uninvitedly traveled to the UK to track down and debate Dawkins says more about him than Dawkins.
rumborak
-
He wasn't uninvited. He didn't organize the event. He was invited to attend the debate by a separate organization. As was Dawkins.
Either way, it's not intended to be any sort of argument. It was a mere observation.
-
This is Dawkins' side of things:
https://richarddawkins.net/articles/643584-why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig
Sounds rather reasonable tbh.
rumborak
-
Oh, rumborak, I know, hehe. I know.
But rumborak, please, see his excuse for what it is: a desperate attempt to avoid honest dialogue (or embarrassment) with the opposition.
Dawkins' fellow atheist Daniel Came had the following to say on the matter:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig
and if you're feeling theatrical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqFqbKlRiLw
-
But rumborak, please, see his excuse for what it is: a desperate attempt to avoid honest dialogue (or embarrassment) with the opposition.
At the danger of being banned for this, I have to say this:
Looking at responses like the above, I wholly sympathize with Dawkins not wanting to debate extreme dogmatists. Because frankly, that's what you are yourself, and I find myself getting close to putting you on my "soft ban" list. Just like Dawkins did with Craig.
rumborak
-
:huh:
Huh? My comment was even less severe than the comments an atheist made regarding Dawkins.
And what do you mean by "extreme dogmatics"?
You become more enigmatic and unintelligible as the posts go by, rumborak...
-
both of you knock it off
-
nm
-
This is Dawkins' side of things:
https://richarddawkins.net/articles/643584-why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig (https://richarddawkins.net/articles/643584-why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig)
Sounds rather reasonable tbh.
rumborak
Of course it does. Dawkins is a brilliant and articulate person. He prefers to debate others of the same caliber. Can't say I blame him there.
-
This is Dawkins' side of things:
https://richarddawkins.net/articles/643584-why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig (https://richarddawkins.net/articles/643584-why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig)
Sounds rather reasonable tbh.
rumborak
Of course it does. Dawkins is a brilliant and articulate person. He prefers to debate others of the same caliber. Can't say I blame him there.
WLC is not articulate? He's a guy that says exactly what he needs to. Have you seen him in debates?
-
No, I worded that wrong. I won't edit it, but I will retract it to some extent. Let me rephrase. WLC is a master of debate. The actual tactics and mechanics of debating. He's possibly the best debater out there right now. And he wins most of his debates not because he has better arguments (he doesn't) but because he's a better arguer.
More on that here. (https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437)
-
I mean, there's arguing for the existence of some "God" like entity, and arguing for a definition of God, and then there's arguing for the Christian - or any one religions - conception of "God." I've read a lot of philosophy on the matter, and I've never seen one argument that proves the existence of God, or some "higher" realm; they at best provide the possibility of God's existence, or of some "higher" realm. Anyone who claims actual knowledge on the issue, whether they're certain there is no "God" or certain that there is a "god", is really reaching way too far.
-
No, I worded that wrong. I won't edit it, but I will retract it to some extent. Let me rephrase. WLC is a master of debate. The actual tactics and mechanics of debating. He's possibly the best debater out there right now. And he wins most of his debates not because he has better arguments (he doesn't) but because he's a better arguer.
More on that here. (https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437)
Ah I see. So the way you're looking at it is "WLC vs. Richard Dawkins", while I'm looking at it as "Theism vs. Atheism". An argument stands or falls on its own. Its independent of its presenter.
WLC keeps things very simple. He pretty much lists off bullet points when he speaks. He presents the argument, not his personality. That's the way analytic philosophy (and any proper debate, really) is done. I don't think it's impossible for someone to keep up with him. If atheists are right about their view, then the arguments should be able to speak for themselves.
-
No, I worded that wrong. I won't edit it, but I will retract it to some extent. Let me rephrase. WLC is a master of debate. The actual tactics and mechanics of debating. He's possibly the best debater out there right now. And he wins most of his debates not because he has better arguments (he doesn't) but because he's a better arguer.
More on that here. (https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437)
Ah I see. So the way you're looking at it is "WLC vs. Richard Dawkins", while I'm looking at it as "Theism vs. Atheism". An argument stands or falls on its own. Its independent of its presenter.
WLC keeps things very simple. He pretty much lists off bullet points when he speaks. He presents the argument, not his personality. That's the way analytic philosophy (and any proper debate, really) is done. I don't think it's impossible for someone to keep up with him. If atheists are right about their view, then the arguments should be able to speak for themselves.
Thinking that, in a debate, that simply the merits of an arguement alone are all that is needed to win, is pretty naive. Especially when the arguements on both sides are extremely emotionally charged, and with neither side truly being able to prove who is right or wrong.
-
Of course it does. Dawkins is a brilliant and articulate person. He prefers to debate others of the same caliber. Can't say I blame him there.
Wow. I must admit, that made me chuckle. As I said, Dawkins is knowledgeable in his own scientific field. But once he dares endeavor into philosophy, he's an embarrassing hack. He commits philosophical gaffes in The God Delusion that are the typical ones you'd expect someone who has never even taken high school intro to philosophy 101.
And you're right, WLC is nowhere near his caliber. He is millions of miles above.
No, I worded that wrong. I won't edit it, but I will retract it to some extent. Let me rephrase. WLC is a master of debate. The actual tactics and mechanics of debating. He's possibly the best debater out there right now. And he wins most of his debates not because he has better arguments (he doesn't) but because he's a better arguer.
More on that here. (https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437)
The temptation to respond lengthily to this is immense, but I'll try to keep it simple.
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).
-
A real-time debate in front of a live audience is never just about the arguments.
-
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).
So true. I wish an atheist debater would just walk through Craig's typical 5 arguments and break each one down, rather than spew their ideas all over the place. But that never happens.
-
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).
So true. I wish an atheist debater would just walk through Craig's typical 5 arguments and break each one down, rather than spew their ideas all over the place. But that never happens.
Care to list em here? I'll give it my best.
-
I'm a bit stumped as to why it's considered so hard to refute this guy. A couple of comments:
1) Apparently Craig relies quite heavily on his Kalam cosmological argument. As pointed out in the other thread, physics already questions the validity of his conclusions about causality
2) Even if one concedes a Prime Mover, that is something very different than a God.
rumborak
-
Of course it does. Dawkins is a brilliant and articulate person. He prefers to debate others of the same caliber. Can't say I blame him there.
Wow. I must admit, that made me chuckle. As I said, Dawkins is knowledgeable in his own scientific field. But once he dares endeavor into philosophy, he's an embarrassing hack. He commits philosophical gaffes in The God Delusion that are the typical ones you'd expect someone who has never even taken high school intro to philosophy 101.
And you're right, WLC is nowhere near his caliber. He is millions of miles above.
No, I worded that wrong. I won't edit it, but I will retract it to some extent. Let me rephrase. WLC is a master of debate. The actual tactics and mechanics of debating. He's possibly the best debater out there right now. And he wins most of his debates not because he has better arguments (he doesn't) but because he's a better arguer.
More on that here. (https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437)
The temptation to respond lengthily to this is immense, but I'll try to keep it simple.
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).
Nope, he wins debates because he's good at debating. His arguments, frankly, are (in my personal view) bunk.
-
Of course it does. Dawkins is a brilliant and articulate person. He prefers to debate others of the same caliber. Can't say I blame him there.
Wow. I must admit, that made me chuckle. As I said, Dawkins is knowledgeable in his own scientific field. But once he dares endeavor into philosophy, he's an embarrassing hack. He commits philosophical gaffes in The God Delusion that are the typical ones you'd expect someone who has never even taken high school intro to philosophy 101.
And you're right, WLC is nowhere near his caliber. He is millions of miles above.
No, I worded that wrong. I won't edit it, but I will retract it to some extent. Let me rephrase. WLC is a master of debate. The actual tactics and mechanics of debating. He's possibly the best debater out there right now. And he wins most of his debates not because he has better arguments (he doesn't) but because he's a better arguer.
More on that here. (https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437)
The temptation to respond lengthily to this is immense, but I'll try to keep it simple.
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).
Nope, he wins debates because he's good at debating. His arguments, frankly, are (in my personal view) bunk.
Clearly you disagree with (1) but do you disagree with the other reasons Omega listed?
-
I'm a bit stumped as to why it's considered so hard to refute this guy. A couple of comments:
1) Apparently Craig relies quite heavily on his Kalam cosmological argument. As pointed out in the other thread, physics already questions the validity of his conclusions about causality
2) Even if one concedes a Prime Mover, that is something very different than a God.
rumborak
Responses:
1.) I just wrote on that other thread clarifying the issue. Physics does not question the validity of causality
2.) Given that the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (points 1. and 2., not the conclusion, 3.) are more plausibly true than false (which you'd likely agree with), the conclusion logically leads to a cause of the universe which is timeless, immaterial, and omnipotent (and as Craig would effectively argue, personal). You might say the argument does nothing to endow this timeless, immaterial, omnipotent cause with attributes of listening to prayers, etc. Yet that would be correct; the Kalam Cosmological Argument does not aspire to ascribe this cause of the universe with listening to prayers or even being the God of Christianity, etc. That weight is shouldered by other arguments. Yet this argument, does, however, lead to the conclusion of an omnipotent cause transcendent of space, time, energy and matter.
-
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).
So true. I wish an atheist debater would just walk through Craig's typical 5 arguments and break each one down, rather than spew their ideas all over the place. But that never happens.
Care to list em here? I'll give it my best.
It would be fun, I'll admit, but it would be an enormous undertaking. Both on my part to defend them from unscrupulous objections and on yours to avoid committing logical fallacies, etc. I'd be interested in doing this, yet it would be a long, drawn out process. Many, many pages upon pages would be utilized.
-
Of course it does. Dawkins is a brilliant and articulate person. He prefers to debate others of the same caliber. Can't say I blame him there.
Wow. I must admit, that made me chuckle. As I said, Dawkins is knowledgeable in his own scientific field. But once he dares endeavor into philosophy, he's an embarrassing hack. He commits philosophical gaffes in The God Delusion that are the typical ones you'd expect someone who has never even taken high school intro to philosophy 101.
And you're right, WLC is nowhere near his caliber. He is millions of miles above.
No, I worded that wrong. I won't edit it, but I will retract it to some extent. Let me rephrase. WLC is a master of debate. The actual tactics and mechanics of debating. He's possibly the best debater out there right now. And he wins most of his debates not because he has better arguments (he doesn't) but because he's a better arguer.
More on that here. (https://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1437)
The temptation to respond lengthily to this is immense, but I'll try to keep it simple.
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).
Nope, he wins debates because he's good at debating. His arguments, frankly, are (in my personal view) bunk.
Clearly you disagree with (1) but do you disagree with the other reasons Omega listed?
He wins debates because he's good at debating. That's really all I have to say about that. I respectfully decline further elaboration on this because I think it's a waste of time.
-
Have you ever considered that William Lane Craig "wins" debates because:
1.) His arguments are ultimately effective.
2.) Because atheists either evade Craig's arguments or fail to render the premises more likely false than true.
3.) Because atheists provide NO arguments against the existence of God, perhaps other than the Problem of Suffering, which inevitably backfires on the atheist.
4.) Because in response to Craig's arguments, most atheists simply then proceed to launch an emotional, bitter diatribe as to why they hate religion and all imaginable negative effects of religion (which don't amount to arguments, rather unwarranted personal biographical statements).
So true. I wish an atheist debater would just walk through Craig's typical 5 arguments and break each one down, rather than spew their ideas all over the place. But that never happens.
Care to list em here? I'll give it my best.
It would be fun, I'll admit, but it would be an enormous undertaking. Both on my part to defend them from unscrupulous objections and on yours to avoid committing logical fallacies, etc. I'd be interested in doing this, yet it would be a long, drawn out process. Many, many pages upon pages would be utilized.
Could you just list them? I don't have to respond in the thread, I'm just genuinely interested in this topic, and I have been since I was extremely young. Of course, I've never seen one argument, anywhere, that was satisfactory on the matter, but it's still interesting to see what other people think is so damn convincing.
-
Sure, Scheavo, just keep in mind that merely listing them would be only the first half of the entire equation, so to speak. The other absolutely crucial task is the defense of the premises.
Before I list them, I'd like to ask you whether you'd like me to include very brief atheistic objections to the premises and a brief defense of the objections. Would you?
-
Huh? Well, I'm not going to argue for atheism, really, so I don't know how that's relevant. In my opinion, atheists and theists are both wrong, and for the same fundamental reasons.
-
I'll take that as a no. I fully expect to hear all sorts extremely silly "objections," and keep in mind that Craig doesn't simply state the arguments and sit back, expecting a slam dunk; he goes into great detail to reveal how each premise is more likely true than false and to expose objections. Here are the arguments that he most frequently presents:
Leibniz's Argument:
1.Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation for its existence.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The Design Argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
The Moral Argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
There are more arguments that Craig knows and is perfectly capable of defending, yet these are the ones that he most frequently defends. Also, keep in mind that these arguments are logically coherent; that is to say that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
-
Nope, he wins debates because he's good at debating. His arguments, frankly, are (in my personal view) bunk.
He's good at debating because his arguments are effective. He wouldn't be considered a good debater if he would defend logically incoherent or ludicrous arguments.
Besides, these are big words, Kirk, and frankly, I get the feeling that you don't believe in God for emotional reasons rather than intellectual ones.
But by all means, if you think they're bunk, I'd be very interested to know precisely how so.
-
Also, keep in mind that these arguments are logically coherent; that is to say that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
OK, but some of those premises look kind of shaky to me. And I'm a theist.
-
Also, keep in mind that these arguments are logically coherent; that is to say that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
OK, but some of those premises look kind of shaky to me. And I'm a theist.
Hefdaddy, two questions:
1.) Have you had any type of philosophical foundation? Taken any philosophy classes? (From what I gather, you tend to worry more about biblical historicity and scholarship, right?)
2.) What premises trouble you? To re-iterate, when I say that the argument is logically coherent, I mean that if one were to accept the premises, the conclusion would flow coherently from the premises. In other words, you'd have to deny or reject one of the premises and give satisfying reasons for why the premise you deny is more reasonably false than true in order to reject the conclusion.
It would be silly, for example, to simply say "I the whole of Leibniz's argument is wrong!" Surely one wouldn't deny premise 3. that the universe exists, in a right state of mind, would they?
(Oh, and I'd really appreciate it if you stopped calling philosophical matters "bullshit" :millahhhh)
-
Hefdaddy, two questions:
1.) Have you had any type of philosophical foundation? Taken any philosophy classes?
Not really. I never saw the point.
(From what I gather, you tend to worry more about biblical historicity and scholarship, right?)
Yes, that's correct.
2.) What premises trouble you?
"Trouble" is probably too strong a term. Precisely because I lack the appropriate background. I am admittedly a total layman here, and probably should have just kept my mouth shut. It's just that some of the premises seem to be random statements that I see no reason, on the face of it, to accept. Such as, "Everything that exists has a reason for its existence." And no, I don't want to debate it.
To re-iterate, when I say that the argument is logically coherent, I mean that if one were to accept the premises, the conclusion would flow coherently from the premises. In other words, you'd have to deny or reject one of the premises and give satisfying reasons for why the premise you deny is more reasonably false than true in order to reject the conclusion.
Sure, that makes sense.
It would be silly, for example, to simply say "I the whole of Leibniz's argument is wrong!" Surely one wouldn't deny premise 3. that the universe exists, in a right state of mind, would they?
I agree. But premises 1, 2 & 4 seem shaky to me.
(Oh, and I'd really appreciate it if you stopped calling philosophical matters "bullshit" :millahhhh)
I'll see what I can do. Likewise, as a moderator here, I'd really appreciate if you got along better with others here. Let's both work on it, whatta ya say?
-
Debating the existence of God is seriously one of the silliest things in the world. I just don't understand why people on both sides of the argument, engage in it so much. Especially because the debates typically involve two groups of people that will likely never be convinced by the other side. It's all for show and the show is empty and pointless. Granted, there may be people who go 'Well, that argument makes sense...' but I just don't see it happening much at all to warrant it.
Plus, to me, religion is all about faith. It doesn't matter that you can or can't prove whether it's true, it's only important that you believe it's true. And I say this as an atheist.
-
I have to agree with you, as a Christian. God does not need a person to prove his existence any more than a father who is an architect needs his his son to draw up a house for him on "take your kid to work day". Also, the Bible teaches that God is the one responsible for saving people, not people. It is not my responsibility to argue my way into your heart to believe in God, and further to believe that Jesus was who he said he was, and did the things he said he did.
It is possible to share your thoughts and beliefs on the internet in a civil and respectful way, agree to disagree, and walk away having learned something. Shockingly enough, most adults practice this.
-
Good point King. I don't understand why some theists need to prove to atheists that they're wrong, or why some atheists need to prove to theists that they're wrong. Just believe what you believe and leave it at that.
-
Leibniz's Argument:
1.Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe has an explanation for its existence.
2) It does not follow that if the universe has an explanation, that that explanation is God. Some versions of physics can posit multiverses, and some forms of quantum mechanics can almost make it so the universe exists because of itself. Or, to define God as such, basically tries to define away the argument, and doesn't actually answer the argument. Okay so, "God" exists, but what is it? How do you know it is such? And a variety of other questions. It's not an answer, it's a relocation of the problem.
And for number 1, if God exists, then what is his explanation for existing?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Basically, the same as the above.
The Design Argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
And how is it that you so readily claim that it is not due to physical necessity or chance, and isn't that the question we're debating?
Perhaps there's more than one "universe," as we call them, and that in many others, the conditions aren't right for life, etc, and there's basically nothing. However, thermodynamics dictates the formation of most of the fundamental building blocks for life, and combine that with a very large universe, and lots of possibilities, and the very unlikely becomes true.
The Moral Argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Number 1 works upon a fallaciously denying the antecedent (I believe I got the name right). Excuse my shorthand, but I'm feeling lazy: If God exists, then objective moral values exist. A -> B. God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. ~A -> ~B. If it rains, and my car is outside, my car will be wet. It has not rained, therefor, my car will not be wet. As you can see, this is clearly false, because my car could be wet for other reasons.
Number 2 basically takes for granted something which doesn't appear to be true. There's some general consensus surrounding human morality, but there definitely isn't anything near enough similarity to say objective moral value exists. On top of that, this only takes into account human morality, and unwarrantly ignores how other animals and living things behave, act, and what kind of morality they follow.
The premises are rather dubious, if you ask me. Under the best case scenario, "God" becomes a term so broad and begging of questions, that it sorta defeats the point of what we set out to do in the first place. It becomes an empty answer.
-
To me it seems that all four arguments use the good old 'God of the Gaps', for all of them it would be easier and more philosophically sound to say 'we don't know yet' or 'we can't know' than to place God in the part of which we have no knowledge about and use this as evidence.
-
Those arguments are reaaaaaally begging the question.
-
I fully expect to hear all sorts extremely silly "objections," and keep in mind that Craig doesn't simply state the arguments and sit back, expecting a slam dunk; he goes into great detail to reveal how each premise is more likely true than false and to expose objections.
-
It would be silly, for example, to simply say "I the whole of Leibniz's argument is wrong!" Surely one wouldn't deny premise 3. that the universe exists, in a right state of mind, would they?
I agree. But premises 1, 2 & 4 seem shaky to me.
To clarify, hefdaddy, Number 4. is not a premise. It is the conclusion. Indeed all final steps in these arguments are not premises; they are the conclusion of the arguments.
-
I fully expect to hear all sorts extremely silly "objections," and keep in mind that Craig doesn't simply state the arguments and sit back, expecting a slam dunk; he goes into great detail to reveal how each premise is more likely true than false and to expose objections.
Well, see, you already have your answer, so it's pointless to argue with you.
-
Not an answer, mate, a defense. Bring these "objections" up in a high school philosophy class and you'll be praying you didn't. These are not philosophically rigorous objections.
-
It would be silly, for example, to simply say "I the whole of Leibniz's argument is wrong!" Surely one wouldn't deny premise 3. that the universe exists, in a right state of mind, would they?
I agree. But premises 1, 2 & 4 seem shaky to me.
To clarify, hefdaddy, Number 4. is not a premise. It is the conclusion. Indeed all final steps in these arguments are not premises; they are the conclusion of the arguments.
I think he meant 1,2 and 4 as in the the premises for arguments 1, 2, and 4 - Leibniz, Kalam, and Moral.
-
Hmm, I don't think so, Sigz.
Besides that the wording of his response which indicates otherwise, he was responding to a comment of mine in which I illustrated why it would be ridiculous to deny the entire Leibniz's argument as one would also deny premise
3. The universe exists
which no sincere seeker of truth would deny.
-
*shrug*
-
Good point King. I don't understand why some theists need to prove to atheists that they're wrong, or why some atheists need to prove to theists that they're wrong. Just believe what you believe and leave it at that.
I don't think it's particularly surprising really. Theists see their worldview under attack (and not without reason), so it's only natural they want to fire back and prove they are right. Atheists, I think, mostly argue in response. When I'm amongst my fellow non-believers, God is never a topic really.
rumborak
-
Bring these "objections" up in a high school philosophy class and you'll be praying you didn't. These are not philosophically rigorous objections.
lol, claiming that opposing arguments belong in a high school 101 is incredibly easy and childish and saying stuff like that doesn't really add to your credibility.
anyway, here's Daniel Dennett with pretty much the same response to WLC's arguments as people made in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4 (you can skip to 5 min) The criticism is sound, you can't just place a (Chrisitan) God in the equation... it is all just speculation.
-
The idea that you can deduce a Christian god from first principles only shows how much blinders WLC has on really. You might argue for a god, but the Christian (i.e. Abrahamic) god is just a rather random historic conglomerate. And not shared by the majority of the world's populous.
rumborak
-
The idea that you can deduce a Christian god from first principles only shows how much blinders WLC has on really. You might argue for a god, but the Christian (i.e. Abrahamic) god is just a rather random historic conglomerate. And not shared by the majority of the world's populous.
rumborak
I don't know how many times you need to be told that these philosophical arguments point to a god and not the Christian God, and Craig never says otherwise.
I've never heard of Leibniz's Argument but it looks kind of weird to me. Actually, TBH, even as a huge supporter of Craig, I think only the Kalam Cosmological Argument stands it's ground. But of course all you need is one valid argument for something to be true.
Fine-Tuning Argument - basically converted by Sigz (congrats buddy). Life isn't scientifically 'special' and any given universe you hypothesize is going to be extremely unlikely. Even if a universe consisted of ten specks of dust in a volume of, say 100 cubic meters, the possibilities of the arrangement of those specks of dust are near endless. Yet you wouldn't look at that universe and say it was designed.
Moral Argument - the second premise isn't necessarily true. Even if objective morality seemed obvious (i.e. a properly basic belief), one could easily say that natural selection made it seem obvious. Because we can never unbias ourselves by removing our humanity from our judgment calls, we can never really 'know' that morality is objective.
I do believe in objective morality and in the fine-tuning of the universe, but they are not useful in fundamental theist arguments.
-
I don't know how many times you need to be told that these philosophical arguments point to a god and not the Christian God, and Craig never says otherwise.
Sorry, I somehow had gotten the impression that that's what he was eventually aiming at. If not, then all the better, because it would otherwise massively undermine his credibility to argue for the provability of the Christian god.
Regarding Omega's list of arguments above, really only the Kalam one is of any interest. And even that one rests on things that are nowhere near axiomatic truth. (e.g. everything has a cause)
As others have pointed out, WLC is too eager to plug God into anything that hasn't been explained yet. His burden of proof is to show that a God is the only logical consequence for the universe we live in, but he is far away from that.
What he has shown is that you can't directly disprove God. But, that's not exactly news. However, WLC seems to jump from there to the conclusion that it must have been God who created the universe.
rumborak
-
Not an answer, mate, a defense. Bring these "objections" up in a high school philosophy class and you'll be praying you didn't. These are not philosophically rigorous objections.
That's funny, because they did rather well in college level philosophy classes, classes where the proof of Leibniz was considered rather pathetic by everyone in the room - including the professor who barely tried to defend it, and basically just showed how it's a reformulation of other problematic proofs.
I also notice how you didn't refer to a single ONE of my reasons (of which there were many), and instead simply stated that they're "not rigorous," and with absolutely no justification. Try to pull that off in any philosophy class, and you'll get an F for not even doing the assignment.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows, so that's proof. That's not a proof, and my bringing up objections to the premises in no way says anything about other premises.
ridiculous to deny the entire Leibniz's argument as one would also deny premise
3. The universe exists
Okay, see, this is just patently illogical, and not true. In denying that the second premise is true (and that the first premise is shaky), I am NOT making ANY statement about the third premise being True or False, and when I say that the conclusion is unreliable, I am again NOT saying that the Universe does not exist.
I can't even fathom how you think that's logically valid. I'd be willing to wager it's actually the fallacy of denying the antecedent. ~ B does NOT mean ~ A.
There's something even more wrong about this logic, but I can't put my finger on it just right now. But basically, if I put the premise, "The Universe Exists," in an absurdly illogical argument, that doesn't mean you have to agree with the argument, otherwise. Putting a obviously true premise in an argument, does not make that argument better, it does not make that argument sound, and it does not make that argument valid or true.
-
Debating the existence of God is seriously one of the silliest things in the world. I just don't understand why people on both sides of the argument, engage in it so much. Especially because the debates typically involve two groups of people that will likely never be convinced by the other side. It's all for show and the show is empty and pointless. Granted, there may be people who go 'Well, that argument makes sense...' but I just don't see it happening much at all to warrant it.
Plus, to me, religion is all about faith. It doesn't matter that you can or can't prove whether it's true, it's only important that you believe it's true. And I say this as an atheist.
I agree with every word of this, said the atheist-leaning agnostic. :)
-
I just find it interesting/fun to argue (well, sometimes :lol).
-
I consider it an important and interesting enough question to never tune myself out of.
And then, seems like somewhat recently, people on this forum have begun to parade philosophy into the matter, as if anyone with any shred of philosophical training or honesty should agree with the theists, and that God exists. I guess you could say this irked my own education, and peaked my interest a little. Seeing as how I haven't seen anything new, and the responses are largely attacking straw men and the creations of false dichotomies, I'll probably go back to just ignoring all threads regarding religion.