Metal Reviews
https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/

Arguing About Allah
https://www.metalreviews.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=14343		 Page 1 of 23
Author:  Cú Chulainn [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Arguing About Allah
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
To bring up the Sam Harris example again, he doesn't use the term "atheist". His reasoning is that he wouldn't call himself an a-astrologist or an a-alchemist. The term atheist gives credence to the religious position, whereas he's trying to dismiss it. He's simply not superstitious. :D


Then the proper term would probably be "non-theist." Simply meaning he's irreligious.

Quote:
Atheists do not have the burden of proof. Furthermore, the idea of God is conveniently malleable to ad hoc exceptions and other such lovely fallacies that the falsification becomes quite impossible. Theologians have had to adapt their concept of god continually increasing the vagueness of his characteristics to the increasingly critical analysis' of philosophers.


And do you honestly think atheists aren't also frequently guilty of philosophical errors and faulty/ad-hoc reasoning? :rolleyes:


I criticized the concept of God as being inherently fallacious. Attacking atheist individuals is an ad hominem.
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
To bring up the Sam Harris example again, he doesn't use the term "atheist". His reasoning is that he wouldn't call himself an a-astrologist or an a-alchemist. The term atheist gives credence to the religious position, whereas he's trying to dismiss it. He's simply not superstitious. :D


Then the proper term would probably be "non-theist." Simply meaning he's irreligious.

Quote:
Atheists do not have the burden of proof. Furthermore, the idea of God is conveniently malleable to ad hoc exceptions and other such lovely fallacies that the falsification becomes quite impossible. Theologians have had to adapt their concept of god continually increasing the vagueness of his characteristics to the increasingly critical analysis' of philosophers.


And do you honestly think atheists aren't also frequently guilty of philosophical errors and faulty/ad-hoc reasoning? :rolleyes:


I criticized the concept of God as being inherently fallacious. Attacking atheist individuals is an ad hominem.


That's sort of what you were doing with Christians, though. I wasn't attacking atheists in general. I was just pointing out that they're no more immune to faulty logic and philosophical errors than Christians.
Author:  Cú Chulainn [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
To bring up the Sam Harris example again, he doesn't use the term "atheist". His reasoning is that he wouldn't call himself an a-astrologist or an a-alchemist. The term atheist gives credence to the religious position, whereas he's trying to dismiss it. He's simply not superstitious. :D


Then the proper term would probably be "non-theist." Simply meaning he's irreligious.

Quote:
Atheists do not have the burden of proof. Furthermore, the idea of God is conveniently malleable to ad hoc exceptions and other such lovely fallacies that the falsification becomes quite impossible. Theologians have had to adapt their concept of god continually increasing the vagueness of his characteristics to the increasingly critical analysis' of philosophers.


And do you honestly think atheists aren't also frequently guilty of philosophical errors and faulty/ad-hoc reasoning? :rolleyes:


I criticized the concept of God as being inherently fallacious. Attacking atheist individuals is an ad hominem.


That's sort of what you were doing with Christians, though. I wasn't attacking atheists in general. I was just pointing out that they're no more immune to faulty logic and philosophical errors than Christians.


I never said that atheism makes you immune to faulty logic, I said that faith makes you more prone to faulty logic.
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
To bring up the Sam Harris example again, he doesn't use the term "atheist". His reasoning is that he wouldn't call himself an a-astrologist or an a-alchemist. The term atheist gives credence to the religious position, whereas he's trying to dismiss it. He's simply not superstitious. :D


Then the proper term would probably be "non-theist." Simply meaning he's irreligious.

Quote:
Atheists do not have the burden of proof. Furthermore, the idea of God is conveniently malleable to ad hoc exceptions and other such lovely fallacies that the falsification becomes quite impossible. Theologians have had to adapt their concept of god continually increasing the vagueness of his characteristics to the increasingly critical analysis' of philosophers.


And do you honestly think atheists aren't also frequently guilty of philosophical errors and faulty/ad-hoc reasoning? :rolleyes:


I criticized the concept of God as being inherently fallacious. Attacking atheist individuals is an ad hominem.


That's sort of what you were doing with Christians, though. I wasn't attacking atheists in general. I was just pointing out that they're no more immune to faulty logic and philosophical errors than Christians.


I never said that atheism makes you immune to faulty logic, I said that faith makes you more prone to faulty logic.


Which is why I think the most "reason/logic-based' belief system is probably agnosticism.
Author:  Cú Chulainn [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the FSM? About Thor? Zeus? The Celestial Teapot?
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the FSM? About Thor? Zeus? The Celestial Teapot?


Even an experienced atheist will tell you that God has a lot more credibility than the celestial teapot and FSM. Because there's actual evidence making it (him) a possibility (whether that evidence satisfies everybody is another issue). And it's a very simple/basic concept (just a singular entity greater than everything else in existence). While a celestial teapot and FSM are much more rigid and complex propositions. And we know precisely what we would expect to see if either existed (for example, we'd expect to see evidence that nature is capable of producing teapot shaped items with polk-a-dots). While we can't make such expectations of God.

I'm not discussing this issue with you anymore. It's cutting into my time, and I really don't think it's accomplishing anything. If you have any further questions or arguments (which you clearly do), go read a book on religious philosophy. Or talk to a religion professor. Most importantly, ask yourself, "Is there perhaps more to theology than I'd like to admit? Are there perhaps misconceptions or errors in my understanding of God?" I, on the other hand, can't keep having this same argument over and over again. And if you basically have your heart set on atheism (which, from what I've seen, you clearly do), then I really don't think it's worth discussing this with you anymore because it isn't going to change anything one way or another, and we're basically just wasting each other's time.

Case Closed.
Author:  traptunderice [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the FSM? About Thor? Zeus? The Celestial Teapot?


Even an experienced atheist will tell you that God has a lot more credibility than the celestial teapot and FSM. Because there's actual evidence making it (him) a possibility (whether that evidence satisfies everybody is another issue). And it's a very simple/basic concept (just a singular entity greater than everything else in existence). While a celestial teapot and FSM are much more rigid and complex propositions. And we know precisely what we would expect to see if either existed (for example, we'd expect to see evidence that nature is capable of producing teapot shaped items with polk-a-dots). While we can't make such expectations of God.
I call bullshit. Minus the FSM and the teapot, you have no reason to believe a Christian deity over an Indian one.

@Frig: Go read some Feuerbach or Marx. I'm tired of you reciting Dawkins and Harris.
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
traptunderice wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the FSM? About Thor? Zeus? The Celestial Teapot?


Even an experienced atheist will tell you that God has a lot more credibility than the celestial teapot and FSM. Because there's actual evidence making it (him) a possibility (whether that evidence satisfies everybody is another issue). And it's a very simple/basic concept (just a singular entity greater than everything else in existence). While a celestial teapot and FSM are much more rigid and complex propositions. And we know precisely what we would expect to see if either existed (for example, we'd expect to see evidence that nature is capable of producing teapot shaped items with polk-a-dots). While we can't make such expectations of God.
I call bullshit. Minus the FSM and the teapot, you have no reason to believe a Christian deity over an Indian one.
.


I wasn't necessarily referring to the Christian God. I was just referring to "a supernatural power" (using the word "God" in a lose/broad sense). :cool: Sorry if I wasn't clear enough about this.
Author:  Cú Chulainn [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
traptunderice wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the FSM? About Thor? Zeus? The Celestial Teapot?


Even an experienced atheist will tell you that God has a lot more credibility than the celestial teapot and FSM. Because there's actual evidence making it (him) a possibility (whether that evidence satisfies everybody is another issue). And it's a very simple/basic concept (just a singular entity greater than everything else in existence). While a celestial teapot and FSM are much more rigid and complex propositions. And we know precisely what we would expect to see if either existed (for example, we'd expect to see evidence that nature is capable of producing teapot shaped items with polk-a-dots). While we can't make such expectations of God.
I call bullshit. Minus the FSM and the teapot, you have no reason to believe a Christian deity over an Indian one.

@Frig: Go read some Feuerbach or Marx. I'm tired of you reciting Dawkins and Harris.


I try not to recite Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or Hitchens too obviously, in the end the arguments are pretty much the same. I appreciate the suggestion, any particular books you'd like to recommend?
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Even as a Christian, I'll tell you that, if you want to look into some good religious skeptics, check out people like Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. All three are very intelligent/reasonable people and make some points that even I can agree with. And if Biblical skepticism interests you, look into authors like Bart Ehrman.
Author:  Cú Chulainn [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Seinfeld26 wrote:
Even as a Christian, I'll tell you that, if you want to look into some good religious skeptics, check out people like Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. All three are very intelligent/reasonable people and make some points that even I can agree with.


Sagan and Shermer have been on my to-buy list for ages. Unfortunately, I won't be getting any of them anytime soon, as I'm waiting for my amazon shipment of Dawkins' books on biology, which to my great shame I have not actually read. The Selfish Gene sounds incredibly interesting.
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
Even as a Christian, I'll tell you that, if you want to look into some good religious skeptics, check out people like Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. All three are very intelligent/reasonable people and make some points that even I can agree with.


Sagan and Shermer have been on my to-buy list for ages. Unfortunately, I won't be getting any of them anytime soon, as I'm waiting for my amazon shipment of Dawkins' books on biology, which to my great shame I have not actually read. The Selfish Gene sounds incredibly interesting.


Randi is really more about "psychic/paranormal skepticism" than actual religious skepticism (in fact, even though he's ultimately an atheist, he admits to being open to and respectful of religious faith). But, nonetheless, he's also a good read. Particularly if you're cool with the fact that he's neither a scientist nor philosopher, but a professional magician!
Author:  traptunderice [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
FrigidSymphony wrote:
traptunderice wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the FSM? About Thor? Zeus? The Celestial Teapot?


Even an experienced atheist will tell you that God has a lot more credibility than the celestial teapot and FSM. Because there's actual evidence making it (him) a possibility (whether that evidence satisfies everybody is another issue). And it's a very simple/basic concept (just a singular entity greater than everything else in existence). While a celestial teapot and FSM are much more rigid and complex propositions. And we know precisely what we would expect to see if either existed (for example, we'd expect to see evidence that nature is capable of producing teapot shaped items with polk-a-dots). While we can't make such expectations of God.
I call bullshit. Minus the FSM and the teapot, you have no reason to believe a Christian deity over an Indian one.

@Frig: Go read some Feuerbach or Marx. I'm tired of you reciting Dawkins and Harris.


I try not to recite Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or Hitchens too obviously, in the end the arguments are pretty much the same. I appreciate the suggestion, any particular books you'd like to recommend?
Essence of Religin by Feuerbach would be the most concise but he also wrote The Essence of Christianity, which is the same argument but much more elaborate.

For Marx, the intro to his Critique of Hegel has his classic lines:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

Basically, Marx takes Feuerbach's ideas and explains why people immerse themselves into religion and how it ultimately results from the alienation caused by capitalism.

@Seinfeld: When the universe itself is so great and vast how can it even appear logical to suppose there is an even greater entity? Ockham's Razor just prevents me from making that jump. It's much easier to imagine the reactivity of chemicals as being the source of creation. I guess you could always cite the Boeing argument as to how did this giant complex system come together without some sort of plan but to me that's really just trying to couch the universe into our understanding in where complexity equals design. Maybe I'm just so alienated from my own capacity for production that I can't see god's own works when they are right in front of me.
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
traptunderice wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
traptunderice wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Is it reasonable to be agnostic about the FSM? About Thor? Zeus? The Celestial Teapot?


Even an experienced atheist will tell you that God has a lot more credibility than the celestial teapot and FSM. Because there's actual evidence making it (him) a possibility (whether that evidence satisfies everybody is another issue). And it's a very simple/basic concept (just a singular entity greater than everything else in existence). While a celestial teapot and FSM are much more rigid and complex propositions. And we know precisely what we would expect to see if either existed (for example, we'd expect to see evidence that nature is capable of producing teapot shaped items with polk-a-dots). While we can't make such expectations of God.
I call bullshit. Minus the FSM and the teapot, you have no reason to believe a Christian deity over an Indian one.

@Frig: Go read some Feuerbach or Marx. I'm tired of you reciting Dawkins and Harris.


I try not to recite Dawkins, Harris, Dennett or Hitchens too obviously, in the end the arguments are pretty much the same. I appreciate the suggestion, any particular books you'd like to recommend?
Essence of Religin by Feuerbach would be the most concise but he also wrote The Essence of Christianity, which is the same argument but much more elaborate.

For Marx, the intro to his Critique of Hegel has his classic lines:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

Basically, Marx takes Feuerbach's ideas and explains why people immerse themselves into religion and how it ultimately results from the alienation caused by capitalism.

@Seinfeld: When the universe itself is so great and vast how can it even appear logical to suppose there is an even greater entity? Ockham's Razor just prevents me from making that jump. It's much easier to imagine the reactivity of chemicals as being the source of creation. I guess you could always cite the Boeing argument as to how did this giant complex system come together without some sort of plan but to me that's really just trying to couch the universe into our understanding in where complexity equals design. Maybe I'm just so alienated from my own capacity for production that I can't see god's own works when they are right in front of me.


Well, again, this I think is why discussions about whether or not God exists usually go nowhere. What may seem perfectly reasonable to one person, may not seem quite so reasonable to another (and vice versa). And, when all is said and done, it's really just a "Who knows the unknown better?" question anyway (in fact, one of the key components of Catholic theology is that God is in many ways "unknowable"). I would like to briefly point out, though, that the actual "complexity" of God is debated. Some say that, actually, he's probably the most simple thing in all of existence and that we make him seem much more complicated than he really is. I find this to be a very attractive view, but I'm not really versed enough in that branch of religious philosophy to effectively argue for it.

For me, I just can't fathom infnite time and space. It just doesn't seem logical to me (this was pretty much affirmed when I took upper-level Mathematics). So, almost by complete default, I believe in a "greater power." My actual religion (Christianity), however, is much more personal and emotion/faith-based.
Author:  ganeshaRules [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
Even as a Christian, I'll tell you that, if you want to look into some good religious skeptics, check out people like Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. All three are very intelligent/reasonable people and make some points that even I can agree with.


Sagan and Shermer have been on my to-buy list for ages. Unfortunately, I won't be getting any of them anytime soon, as I'm waiting for my amazon shipment of Dawkins' books on biology, which to my great shame I have not actually read. The Selfish Gene sounds incredibly interesting.


Dawkins is far better writting about biology (the selfish gene or The ancestor's Tale) than writting about militant atheism (God delusion's or Unweaving the rainbow). The ancestor tale is, by far, my fav biology book.
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Won't disagree there. In fact, I myself may want to read The Selfish Gene. I know it's manditory reading in most university Psychology programs, and being that I'm casually interested in psychology, I think it would be quite interesting.
Author:  ganeshaRules [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Seinfeld26 wrote:
Won't disagree there. In fact, I myself may want to read The Selfish Gene. I know it's manditory reading in most university Psychology programs, and being that I'm casually interested in psychology, I think it would be quite interesting.


The selfish gene & all the meme thing it's a must know, actually. I'd give a try to The ancestor tale, a biology & evolution masterpiece.

About the thread theme, I'm myself an atheist, but not a militant atheist. I'm militant (and very active in my local community, and in some blogs) against creationist, intelligent design, religious fanatism and similar things. Religion and faith should never be in front of facts, science or personal freedom.
Author:  Goat [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
Even as a Christian, I'll tell you that, if you want to look into some good religious skeptics, check out people like Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. All three are very intelligent/reasonable people and make some points that even I can agree with.


Sagan and Shermer have been on my to-buy list for ages. Unfortunately, I won't be getting any of them anytime soon, as I'm waiting for my amazon shipment of Dawkins' books on biology, which to my great shame I have not actually read. The Selfish Gene sounds incredibly interesting.


Randi is really more about "psychic/paranormal skepticism" than actual religious skepticism (in fact, even though he's ultimately an atheist, he admits to being open to and respectful of religious faith). But, nonetheless, he's also a good read. Particularly if you're cool with the fact that he's neither a scientist nor philosopher, but a professional magician!


He's the Uri Gellar debunker, right, had a reward for someone who could do a trick he couldn't explain? Awesome, love him.
Author:  Seinfeld26 [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Goat wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
FrigidSymphony wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
Even as a Christian, I'll tell you that, if you want to look into some good religious skeptics, check out people like Carl Sagan, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. All three are very intelligent/reasonable people and make some points that even I can agree with.


Sagan and Shermer have been on my to-buy list for ages. Unfortunately, I won't be getting any of them anytime soon, as I'm waiting for my amazon shipment of Dawkins' books on biology, which to my great shame I have not actually read. The Selfish Gene sounds incredibly interesting.


Randi is really more about "psychic/paranormal skepticism" than actual religious skepticism (in fact, even though he's ultimately an atheist, he admits to being open to and respectful of religious faith). But, nonetheless, he's also a good read. Particularly if you're cool with the fact that he's neither a scientist nor philosopher, but a professional magician!


He's the Uri Gellar debunker, right, had a reward for someone who could do a trick he couldn't explain? Awesome, love him.


What he has is the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, at which he offers a 1 Million Dollar prize to any "psychic" or "witch" who can prove his/her abilities to be true. He's also done a lot of good things for the Christian community - probably more than he realizes. For example, in the 80's, he exposed a popular yet fraudulent preacher(whose name escapes me). I really think he should be respected, even if you don't agree with him on some things.
Author:  noodles [ Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: “Look, it’s not like I don’t have actual reasons for not believing in God. It’s not like I haven’t ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn’t see a thing, and it was fifty below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out ‘Oh, God, if there is a God, I’m lost in this blizzard, and I’m gonna die if you don’t help me.’” And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. “Well then you must believe now,” he says, “After all, here you are, alive.” The atheist just rolls his eyes. “No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp.”

There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?”

checkmate atheism~!
Page 1 of 23 All times are UTC + 1 hour
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/