I pit Richard Dawkins, Victor Davis Hanson and people like them

[MOIDALIZE]

I’m perfectly happy to grant that Victor Davis Hanson may not be a total assclown.

But I have yet to see any evidence.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Lobohan

You don’t have to be an expert on theology to know that religion is stupid, that the arguments for it are stupid and that the people who follow it are doing something stupid.

This post reminds me of that scene in *Throw Mama from the Train *where the crazy, elderly, abusive mother runs through the cars screaming, “There are killers aboard, you stupid, stupid people!” Gosh, Lobo, it must be a crushing burden to have to share the world with all those billions of people who are so horribly inferior to you.

[Eonwe]

I know this was back from page one but . . .

@Kimstu

Even I, as an atheist, can see that that’s naively over-simplistic. Why does it have to be either “zero tolerance” or “anything goes”? That’s fundamentalist talk that I don’t think a moderate theist would consider applicable to his/her views.

Why couldn’t a moderate theist say “well, spiritual discipline is part of what God wants us to do, so we enact rules to restrict our actions in certain ways. But God also recognizes that we’re imperfect humans and can’t always apply the rules uniformly, so He doesn’t mind if we build in some exceptions in the rules.”?

You might not find that a convincing argument, and I’m not suggesting that you have to. My point is just that it’s a different argument from saying “LOL we put the steakz in the well n now the Big Guy cant tell itz not fish!!!1!!”

. . . sure. But I think the point here is that the religious practice is completely arbitrary and at the whims of the people doing the practicing. Accepting a re-evaluation of Divine Law to accommodate situational or societal shifts ought to indicate to practitioners with some self-awareness that the laws they are following are laws from Men and not from God. Which doesn’t mean they’re not worth following, or that they’re wrong. But it does poke a bit of a hole in the idea that you must follow the rules because God said to.

[MrDibble]

@Princhester

MOP?

Modal Ontological Proof of the existence of god.

[Czarcasm]

@LonesomePolecat

This post reminds me of that scene in *Throw Mama from the Train *where the crazy, elderly, abusive mother runs through the cars screaming, “There are killers aboard, you stupid, stupid people!” Gosh, Lobo, it must be a crushing burden to have to share the world with all those billions of people who are so horribly inferior to you.

Because someone who states that people who believe something that defies reason without any presentable evidence aren’t acting very smart is the same as an old lady running around and screaming hysterically, right?

[FixMyIgnorance]

The MOP is a pretty weak argument IMO.

“God, if he exists, is a necessary being. That is, if God exists at all then he exists in every possible world. It is possible that God exists, according to the modal ontological argument. These two claims are sufficient, according to the modal ontological argument, to establish the existence of God.”

How anyone can look at that and not burst out laughing is just beyond me.

[VinylTurnip]

@LonesomePolecat

This post reminds me of that scene in *Throw Mama from the Train *where the crazy, elderly, abusive mother runs through the cars screaming, “There are killers aboard, you stupid, stupid people!”

I’m afraid I never had the pleasure of viewing that classic of American cinema in its entirety, but I presume one of the plot points involved someone on a train who was, in fact, attempting to kill her?

Maybe not the best example, unless your intent was to congratulate Lobohan for perceiving the truth.

[Cheshire_Human]

@Eonwe

Accepting a re-evaluation of Divine Law to accommodate situational or societal shifts ought to indicate to practitioners with some self-awareness that the laws they are following are laws from Men and not from God. Which doesn’t mean they’re not worth following, or that they’re wrong. But it does poke a bit of a hole in the idea that you must follow the rules because God said to.

Your mistake here (and Dawkins) is in assuming that the monks in the example ever thought that those were “Divine Law”. They didn’t. The dietary rules in question were made by man, the exceptions were made by man. The purpose of those rules was because God rewards self-sacrifice. Man-made rules enable the people in question to more easily do that, even though the rules themselves are arbitrary and man-made. Dawkins entirely misses that “self-sacrifice” point behind the rules, because he never bothered to ask what the purpose of the rule was. You can’t shoot holes in the target if you don’t know what the target looks like. Dawkins assumes that’s unnecessary. If you refuse to learn what the theologians actually have to say, you will invariably wind up arguing against straw-man versions of their actual position.

[MrDibble]

@Calculon

Just a quick reply to note that it only took the first argument to show that you don’t really have a good handle on what you are talking about. The modal ontological argument was only put forth by Alvin Plantiga in he 20th century. Hume wrote in the 18th century. Unless he had access to a time machine I don’t see how Hume could have torn apart an argument that did not exist in his time.

Because the MOD is just a paraphrase of Anselm’s argument, and that’s the one Hume tore a new one. Just because Plantinga restated it and wrapped it in the frippery of symbolic logic doesn’t mean the argument is original with him.

[Czarcasm]

@MrDibble

Modal Ontological Proof of the existence of god.

From the link:
(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.
(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.
(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.

Please note that the “God” referred to is “perfect.”

[Lobohan]

@BigT

This is exactly the type of puerile nonsense you guys come up with. I have position X. You have position Y. If you want me to also have position Y, you have to bring evidence.

And it’s not even like it’s hard. You’ve never seen him. All things you’ve seen attributed to God have had either natural causes or have been proven not to happen. You can posit a world without God that works. ALL OF THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE.

This right here is exactly an example of the stupid shit Dawkins says. He actually thinks that you don’t have to being evidence for a negative proposal. It’s a prime example of him being out of his element when dealing with theology. He’s used to a deductive logic when theology and other philosophies are based on inductive logic. And, yes, inductive logic isn’t as clear cut.

I honestly can’t understand why otherwise intelligent people buy this shit about not having to argue non-existence. I mean, it’s like they have a blind spot, since all of them actually do argue for nonexistence all the fucking time.

Then again, these same people argue that religious tolerance is something they shouldn’t have to do, but then get all bent out of shape when someone doesn’t tolerate their lack of belief. They talk about the inanity of others’ positions, but conveniently overlook that their own beliefs (or lack thereof) are considered inane by a majority of existing humans. Whether you think something is inane is a rather poor argument for whether or not you should tolerate it.

If it were, then I would have to be completely intolerant to all you guys for lapping up this crap about not having to prove a negative. Instead I know that your inanity is mostly harmless, especially as long as there’s someone out there to point out how inane it is.

Big T, I love all the universe’s creatures, so let me lay this down for you. The trouble is that you are applying different standards for God than for everything else in the universe.

Spiderman. Does he exist? You can’t know for sure. You haven’t examined every particle in the universe to see if Spiderman is behind one of them. Same goes for Santa, Krishna, Xenu and Yahweh.

There are literally infinite possible things that could exist. Spiderman, Thor, Space Ninjas, kind Republicans, and so on. The standard isn’t that we can’t prove it doesn’t exist. Because by that standard we’d have to give Spiderman and God equal weight. Do you support a Pascal’s Wager for Spiderman? If you were robbing a jewelry store in Manhattan, is it worth having a lookout to make sure Spiderman isn’t on patrol?

You, Big T, are perfectly fine saying Spiderman doesn’t exist. Why is that? Given that there is the same amount of evidence for them, what possible reason can you have for honestly saying one is likelier than the other?

So, to sum up, I don’t know God doesn’t exist, any more than I know that I’m not a brain in a jar, or in the Matrix. I do know, that assuming the reality we live in is as we see it, and that God and Spiderman have equal footing (although Spiderman is far likelier than God, since he only breaks the laws of physics a dozen ways) we have no reason to give either one any credence until we have some evidence. God supposedly gave evidence to Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Yet He stupidly forgot that people need that?

Now that I’ve explained this clearly, and presumably you understand it. Can I have an atheist hug?

[Lobohan]

@LonesomePolecat

This post reminds me of that scene in *Throw Mama from the Train *where the crazy, elderly, abusive mother runs through the cars screaming, “There are killers aboard, you stupid, stupid people!” Gosh, Lobo, it must be a crushing burden to have to share the world with all those billions of people who are so horribly inferior to you.

I’m not saying I’m superior to theists. Many theists are stronger, faster, smarter and possibly better looking than me.

But they are still doing something stupid. Everyone does. Smoking, eating too much, cheating on your wife, all stupid things that smart people do.

Just like believing in God.

I don’t expect to convince you, because you’re a blind ideologue who is unable to think beyond your political sphere, but the fact of the matter is there are plenty of things you don’t believe in because there is no evidence. See the above post.

[Lobohan]

@Calculon

First of all, I think the statement that no-one has given any evidence for God is simply absurd. Most religions have arguments and evidence for their positions.

They have arguments that are based on, “Well, it must be true!” That’s not an argument, it’s an assertion. And no religion has evidence. Evidence would need to be supernatural, and nothing in the universe has ever been shown to be supernatural.

If you actually made the effort to understand the views of religious people you would know that. You may not agree with any of the arguments and evidence, but disagreeing with them is very different to saying that they don’t exist. I think the claim that no-one, anywhere, has ever suggested something might be evidence for God is simply disconnected from reality.

You are assuming that evidence exists. Given the importance of such evidence, why has it never, in the history of the world been brought forward?

Secondly, what rule of logical inference are you using to go from no evidence to non-existence. Even if I am an inept child that still does not allow you to logically infer there is no God on the basis of lack of evidence.

You assume non existence for things without evidence every day. Every single time you open your front door, you assume there isn’t a zombie waiting to attack you on the other side. Every time you start your car you assume there isn’t a hive of deadly flesh eating beetles in your seat. Every time you eat a cheese burger, you assume the patty doesn’t have ground up shards of glass in it.

You live your life as if an infinite number of things that have no evidence for them aren’t real. Yet God gets a pass, he must be assumed to exist without evidence. How fortunate for Him.

Calculon.

You may not know this, but I can see who is posting at the top of your post. You don’t really need to sign them.

Regardless,
Lobohan

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Cheshire_Human

Your mistake here (and Dawkins) is in assuming that the monks in the example ever thought that those were “Divine Law”. They didn’t. The dietary rules in question were made by man, the exceptions were made by man. The purpose of those rules was because God rewards self-sacrifice. Man-made rules enable the people in question to more easily do that, even though the rules themselves are arbitrary and man-made. Dawkins entirely misses that “self-sacrifice” point behind the rules, because he never bothered to ask what the purpose of the rule was. You can’t shoot holes in the target if you don’t know what the target looks like. Dawkins assumes that’s unnecessary. If you refuse to learn what the theologians actually have to say, you will invariably wind up arguing against straw-man versions of their actual position.

Oh, the rules are made by man, and are somewhat arbitrary interpretations of what God actually rewards! How stupid of Dawkins not to understand that.

However, since I still don’t understand that, can you please provide me with some evidence as to God rewarding self-sacrifice? Preferably the direct evidence that makes clear how the rules are a human interpretation of God’s actual wishes?

[FixMyIgnorance]

@Cheshire_Human

Your mistake here (and Dawkins) is in assuming that the monks in the example ever thought that those were “Divine Law”. They didn’t. The dietary rules in question were made by man, the exceptions were made by man. The purpose of those rules was because God rewards self-sacrifice. Man-made rules enable the people in question to more easily do that, even though the rules themselves are arbitrary and man-made. Dawkins entirely misses that “self-sacrifice” point behind the rules, because he never bothered to ask what the purpose of the rule was. You can’t shoot holes in the target if you don’t know what the target looks like. Dawkins assumes that’s unnecessary. If you refuse to learn what the theologians actually have to say, you will invariably wind up arguing against straw-man versions of their actual position.

Let’s go to the source of Dawkins’ quote:

http://www.marconews.com/news/2010/mar/02/lets-talk-food-lenten-foods-turn-time-penance-trad/

It is not surprising the French came up with food that supposedly adhered to Lenten dogma while providing toothsome choices. There is even a longtime rumor the wily French resorted to tying a string to a leg of lamb and dipping it into a well, lake or pond (whichever was handy) and claiming it was a fish.

The entire point of something like Lent is that the Church asks you to inconvenience yourself to serve as a reminder that God is the top-dog and that pleasures are a lesser priority. People do it for different reasons but I think it can be reasonably summed up as teaching discipline/restraint/patience/sacrifice/“getting closer to God”/etc.

Obviously, the purpose of self-sacrifice is lost if you’re simply trying to figure out a way to game the system. What is the point of the self-sacrifice? In many cases, it is seen as a form of debt repayment to God / being rewarded in other ways / etc. So how is acting upon loopholes that avoid sacrifice actually accomplishing this goal?

That is why Dawkins said “they must think God is so awfully easily fooled.” It’s like trying to claim that you’re engaging in self-sacrifice like everyone else when, in reality, you’re just trying to find a way to fulfill your pleasures. THAT’S what misses the point.

So no, I don’t think Dawkins missed the purpose behind the rules at all. He was illustrating how people will bend and twist religious practices/guidelines to suit their needs, dropping them whenever it’s convenient and picking them back up when it’s favorable to their ends.

[Cheshire_Human]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Oh, the rules are made by man, and are somewhat arbitrary interpretations of what God actually rewards! How stupid of Dawkins not to understand that.

However, since I still don’t understand that, can you please provide me with some evidence as to God rewarding self-sacrifice? Preferably the direct evidence that makes clear how the rules are a human interpretation of God’s actual wishes?

I have no need to provide evidence for that, because I never made that assertion. I’m not a believer. That’s the assertion of the theists that Dawkins tries to argue against. Dawkins misses the mark in that he doesn’t argue against their actual position, but rather against his own straw-man interpretation of it. You know, like the OP originally was talking about?

[FixMyIgnorance]

@Cheshire_Human

I have no need to provide evidence for that, because I never made that assertion. I’m not a believer. That’s the assertion of the theists that Dawkins tries to argue against. Dawkins misses the mark in that he doesn’t argue against their actual position, but rather against his own straw-man interpretation of it. You know, like the OP originally was talking about?

Well, you do need to provide support because you’re the one saying Dawkins is wrong without showing good reasons why.

If the French really wanted to eat lamb and have it be an exception to the rule, then why not just eat lamb? Why go through the trouble of dipping it in water just so you can call it fish? There’s literally no reason to do that other than to pedantically claim that you’re following guidelines/rules when you’re not. Where’s the sacrifice in that? If, as you claim, it’s all about the purpose “behind the rules,” then would you say that the French here were fulfilling that purpose? Unless you’re a cockthumping asshammer with butterscotch for brains, I dare say the answer is a resounding “No.”

If you want to blame someone for missing the point, blame the French – not Dawkins. If sacrifice, as you say, is meant to garner rewards from God, then clearly the nature of the sacrifice matters to God unless God simply rewards everything, in which case why have rules?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Cheshire_Human

I have no need to provide evidence for that, because I never made that assertion. I’m not a believer. That’s the assertion of the theists that Dawkins tries to argue against. Dawkins misses the mark in that he doesn’t argue against their actual position, but rather against his own straw-man interpretation of it. You know, like the OP originally was talking about?

I apologize. The post I was responding to was made under your name, so you can understand my confusion as to whether it was you making the assertion.

The assertion that you are not making still really holds no water. There is no point in distinguishing between rules made by man versus those made by god since they are all made by man anyway. Dawkins wouldn’t assert that there is a real god that might be fooled by fishing a lamb out of a well. It’s equally baseless to assert that self-sacrifice will be rewarded, to assert that refraining from eating meat reflects self-sacrifice, and to assert that fishing lamb out of a well is a way around the rule about eating meat.

Dawkins is not missing the point, but the theist posting under your account name is.

[Maeglin]

@FixMyIgnorance

Unfortunately for you, this is absolute nonsense.

Just because there’s no evidence for something doesn’t mean both statements are equally valid, lmfao. What the fuck are you smoking? Both statements are invalid and are without proof.

Since you have to wiki everything else to keep up, let me help you with this one.

[FixMyIgnorance]

@Maeglin

Since you have to wiki everything else to keep up, let me help you with this one.

What’s your point? You’re still wrong, here. Both statements are not “equally warranted.” They’re not really warranted at all. “There is no God” is just as devoid of proof as “There is a God” is.