The Persistence of Bulls**t

RealEstateKing

Heres a nice little article about where Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens et. al go wrong:

http://thesickbag.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-12-11T06%3A31%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

Any thoughts?

Hivemind187

I would call that a footnote rather than an article.

The man titles his blog as being "half digested" which this peice certainly is.

It attempts to assert that the 4 horsemen of Atheism (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens) are essentially wasters in that their arguements hold no use to humanity since it is an intractable desire for escapism that feeds religion.

The hypothesis only makes sense under two circumstances.

a) People are incapable of changing their minds in which case they (the above) are indeed wasting their time.

b) People are deliberately and consciously veering away from knowledge, logic and rationalism - in which case the aboves efforts are merely reduced and not entirely wasted (albeit likely fruitless).

I admit that it is reasonably well written (mainly because I am unwilling to throw stones at mistakes I myself have made in prose) but I think it is intended to be a stream of thought rather than a well reasoned argument.

pH

Heres a nice little article about where Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens et. al go wrong:


Any thoughts?

Even if you do say so yourself?

Seriously, if everyone with a blog crossposted every entry on boards this place just wouldn't work - if you want feedback why not read your comments on the blog?

velocirafter

pH wrote: »

Even if you do say so yourself?

Seriously, if everyone with a blog crossposted every entry on boards this place just wouldn't work - if you want feedback why not read your comments on the blog?

I dont think RealEstate wrote the blog and there are no comments on it at any rate.


I think the article does make a good point. Religious people dont respond very well to logical arguments on the topic of religion, they have a kind of mental ringfence that exempts it from that sort of critque.

On the flip side, atheists arent very responsive to religious arguments and rhetoric. I know personally when religious people start making broad mystical statments like, "the lord works in mysterious ways", "Faith leads us beyond ourselves. It leads us directly to God." or "work will make you free" (...oh wait, that was the nazis:p) I totally switch off because it makes zero sense to me.

RealEstateKing

It attempts to assert that the 4 horsemen of Atheism (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens) are essentially wasters in that their arguements hold no use to humanity since it is an intractable desire for escapism that feeds religion.

No that isnt what I asserted. Simply that as much as I agree with the 4 Horsemen, all seem to be mostly concerned with what is true, which is not something religious people particularly care about.

And yes I did write the article myself, is it so wrong to post one's own blog?

Stercus Accidit

velocirafter wrote: »

I dont think RealEstate wrote the blog and there are no comments on it at any rate.


I think the article does make a good point. Religious people dont respond very well to logical arguments on the topic of religion, they have a kind of mental ringfence that exempts it from that sort of critque.

On the flip side, atheists arent very responsive to religious arguments and rhetoric. I know personally when religious people start making broad mystical statments like, "the lord works in mysterious ways", "Faith leads us beyond ourselves. It leads us directly to God." or "work will make you free" (...oh wait, that was the nazis:p) I totally switch off because it makes zero sense to me.

Thats not your problem, its theirs.

Its not a difference of opinion, its a refusal to acknowledge facts, evidence, and reality. Ours is the refusal to accept bullsh*t, not on a par really.

liah

RealEstateKing wrote: »

No that isnt what I asserted. Simply that as much as I agree with the 4 Horsemen, all seem to be mostly concerned with what is true, which is not something religious people particularly care about.

And yes I did write the article myself, is it so wrong to post one's own blog?

You said it.

But there are a few people who have changed their mind due to these men presenting a logical argument, mostly people who were reluctant about the idea but went along with it because of their family or community, but a fair few have been die-hard, too, and finally "saw the light" of logic.

I just don't get why the religious can't see things properly, why they have to resort to faith. I mean, really, it just makes no legitimate sense, how on earth do they not realize it's a fairytale like a thousand other stories? It's the exact same thing. Just because it's old doesn't make it right, or true, or honest.

..and there I go off on tangents again. I'll shut up now.

Dave!

RealEstateKing wrote: »

N
And yes I did write the article myself, is it so wrong to post one's own blog?

Nothing wrong with it, as long as it's on a blog site

MrPudding

velocirafter wrote: »

I think the article does make a good point. Religious people dont respond very well to logical arguments on the topic of religion, they have a kind of mental ringfence that exempts it from that sort of critque.

RealEstateKing wrote: »

No that isnt what I asserted. Simply that as much as I agree with the 4 Horsemen, all seem to be mostly concerned with what is true, which is not something religious people particularly care about.

I always kind of thought he horsemen, like our own Atomic, Wickie etc, are not really trying to convince the die hard religious. Nothing anyone can do or say will convince Wolfie, PDN, Jimmi and the like that their beliefs are wrong. They gain too much from it. Be it the belief that Jesus turned their life around where they could not do that themselves, or the belief that they would be raping an murdering without Jesus in their heart or simply the comfort they get from know how to behave because they have a Do and Don't guide. They can't afford it.

Where I think our esteems atheist colleague are aiming are the undecided or those that are the tokem religion, but think there is something fishy going on.

I would expect, though I have absolutely no empirical evidence, that people with the kind of beliefs a lot on the people on the other have have rarely give them up.

I often wonder are some of these christian guilty of the the inverse of what Wolfsbane accuses us of. he believes that in our organ used for pumping blood around our bodies we know that god exists, but we simply deny it. Has anyone ever wondered if any of the "other side" ever stop for just a moment and wonder why they actually believe this stuff?

MrP

AtomicHorror

MrPudding wrote: »

I always kind of thought he horsemen, like our own Atomic, Wickie etc, are not really trying to convince the die hard religious. Nothing anyone can do or say will convince Wolfie, PDN, Jimmi and the like that their beliefs are wrong. They gain too much from it. Be it the belief that Jesus turned their life around where they could not do that themselves, or the belief that they would be raping an murdering without Jesus in their heart or simply the comfort they get from know how to behave because they have a Do and Don't guide. They can't afford it.

Where I think our esteems atheist colleague are aiming are the undecided or those that are the tokem religion, but think there is something fishy going on.

I would expect, though I have absolutely no empirical evidence, that people with the kind of beliefs a lot on the people on the other have have rarely give them up.

I often wonder are some of these christian guilty of the the inverse of what Wolfsbane accuses us of. he believes that in our organ used for pumping blood around our bodies we know that god exists, but we simply deny it. Has anyone ever wondered if any of the "other side" ever stop for just a moment and wonder why they actually believe this stuff?

MrP

That'd be a fair assessment of my goal. If J C ever changes his mind I'll be forced to suspect the influence of an omnipotent intelligence.

philologos

RealEstateKing wrote: »

No that isnt what I asserted. Simply that as much as I agree with the 4 Horsemen, all seem to be mostly concerned with what is true, which is not something religious people particularly care about.

Actually, I'm really concerned with the truth, and what is true. I believe Jesus Christ to be the truth, and I believe God to be the truth. I don't know how you get the notion that theists are somehow not interested in truth. Or is it that you know for sure that you have the absolute truth, and theists obviously don't care about it because they don't know the same truth you do?

Carpo

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually, I'm really concerned with the truth, and what is true. I believe Jesus Christ to be the truth, and I believe God to be the truth.

This would imply that you are more concerned about your beliefs than the truth. The truth is in no way dependant on what anyone believes.

(incidentally, what does 'I believe God to be the truth' actually mean? Genuine question)

philologos

Carpo wrote: »

This would imply that you are more concerned about your beliefs than the truth. The truth is in no way dependant on what anyone believes.

(incidentally, what does 'I believe God to be the truth' actually mean? Genuine question)

I consider Jesus to be the truth (John 8), I believe what He spoke and what He did was truthful. No, I don't hold my beliefs higher than the truth. However, it's a bit ridiculous to say that Christians don't care about the truth, when they clearly consider Christianity to be the truth, just as true as anything else in common day experience. I consider the truth to be of paramount importance. It is just what we consider to be the truth concerning God that differs. Reasonable enough I would have thought.

Problem is, you consider your truth to be the absolute, and I certainly believe mine to be an absolute. I believe that you are mistaken, but are looking for the truth and are concerned with it. However, it could be that theists are very much concerned about the truth, but they just don't agree with your perception of it.

Carpo

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I don't hold my beliefs higher than the truth. However, it's a bit ridiculous to say that Christians don't care about the truth, when they clearly consider Christianity to be the truth, just as true as anything else in common day experience. I consider the truth to be of paramount importance.

Consider the following:
I believe that 'Bob is great' is the truth. Because I spend a lot of time thinking about how great bob is, does it therefore follow that I am spending a lot of time thinking about the truth?

Of course not. If I were concerned with the truth I would spend my time trying to test wether Bob is actually great, rather than thinking about my belief that he is.

If someone is more concerned with the truth than thier belief, they would (to my mind at least) spend thier time trying to establish the truth rather than thier belief.

Jakkass wrote: »

Problem is, you consider your truth to be the absolute, and I certainly believe mine to be an absolute. I believe that you are mistaken, but are looking for the truth and are concerned with it. However, it could be that theists are very much concerned about the truth, but they just don't agree with your perception of it.

What truth do I have that is absolute? Again, truth is not dependant on anyones belief in it or perception of it.

philologos

Indeed, but in this discussion we can only resort to our perceptions of it. I personally believe that Christianity is true as an absolute, and you personally believe that atheism is the truth as an absolute. Making assumptions about "how people care for the truth" is just ridiculous due to the fact that both are advocating what they believe to be true very strongly. That's the best we can do in a discussion like this.

By the way, what do you have to suggest that Christians aren't trying to establish the truth? It's fairly fruitless, as any objection, I can just lob it back in your direction. It's hardly the most effective means of discussing it.

As for testing whether God (lets leave Bob out of this) (or rather experiencing God as being great as God is believed to be made apparent through faith rather than testing) is great, many would argue that through spiritual experiences, and in building up their relationship with God we can come to know how great God is. That's perfectly reasonable.

Carpo

Jakkass wrote: »

you personally believe that atheism is the truth as an absolute.

Sez who?

I make no claim that Christianity is not truth. However, all the evidence for it is explained in simpler (and usually testable) terms than with the supposition that the Chirstian God exists, and that Christianity reflects his intentions. That does not mean that mean my belief that Christianty is not not true is itself true, I could be wrong. It just means that I have chosen to go with the most likely of possabilities.

philologos

What makes you certain that God is less probable to exist than not? Just curious?

Carpo

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you certain that God is less probable to exist than not? Just curious?

Which one?

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you certain that God is less probable to exist than not? Just curious?

There's no observable evidence for God and his existence is not required to explain anything we do currently observe. Given the characteristics ascribed to the Abrahamic God, this makes it highly unlikely that He exists, at least in line with the definition provided by Christians.

Jakkass wrote:

I personally believe that Christianity is true as an absolute, and you personally believe that atheism is the truth as an absolute.

No, we believe in scepticism (and by extension science) as near-absolutes (pending evidence that they fail us) and in atheism following from these. Our atheism is reversible if evidence is provided.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you certain that God is less probable to exist than not? Just curious?

First of all we need a better definition of what god is. The word is so open to interpretation a near infinite number of concepts could be ascribed the word god. How can I rule out the unknown and undefined? In the case of god defined by Christianity or any other religion of man, I rule them out due to their adherents claims being completely unfounded. Simply put they can't know what they're talking about so I have no reason to believe them. I won't believe them until such a time that they can show that they acquired knowledge of god through empirical means which can be duplicated and corroborated.

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you certain that God is less probable to exist than not? Just curious?

"Not the slightest shred of evidence."

If you'd like a more in-depth answer, you should start here.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

his existence is not required to explain anything we do currently observe.

You don't know that though. Life? We don't know how life began, so you don't actually know if he is required.

velocirafter

JimiTime wrote: »

You don't know that though. Life? We don't know how life began, so you don't actually know if he is required.

Oh god created life, well thats wrapped everything up in a nice little package, we can tick that one off the list then:p

If God created life, who created god? Where does he hang out? What does he do in his spare time? Is he a she?

God is in no way a reasonable answer for where life came from its just a failure to even tackle the topic

Dades

Carpo wrote: »

I make no claim that Christianity is not truth. However, all the evidence for it is explained in simpler (and usually testable) terms than with the supposition that the Chirstian God exists, and that Christianity reflects his intentions. That does not mean that mean my belief that Christianty is not not true is itself true, I could be wrong. It just means that I have chosen to go with the most likely of possabilities.

Carpo I think you've misinterpreted what Jakkass was saying before this. Nothing he said suggested he was more concerned about his beliefs than the truth.

We all believe there is an absolute truth - i.e. that at least least one scenario, either theist or atheist represents the truth. Neither party is claiming to know the absolute truth, but each obviously believes one truth is more realistic than the other.

And now as usual we've gone off into the "Why do you think it's the truth?" tangent.

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

I always kind of thought he horsemen, like our own Atomic, Wickie etc, are not really trying to convince the die hard religious. Nothing anyone can do or say will convince Wolfie, PDN, Jimmi and the like that their beliefs are wrong. They gain too much from it. Be it the belief that Jesus turned their life around where they could not do that themselves, or the belief that they would be raping an murdering without Jesus in their heart or simply the comfort they get from know how to behave because they have a Do and Don't guide. They can't afford it.

Are wolfsbane, PDN, and Jimmi the die hard religious though? I mean these people (as far as I know, I'm not sure of wolfsbanes case) came to Christianity due to being convinced of their own free will. It isn't that they had faith from the get go. I see no reason from the POV of an atheist why these people if they have gone in freely can also return to their previous state freely. However, as a Christian I personally don't think they will lose their faith.

It was an interesting point I just want to take you up on.

MrPudding wrote: »

I often wonder are some of these christian guilty of the the inverse of what Wolfsbane accuses us of. he believes that in our organ used for pumping blood around our bodies we know that god exists, but we simply deny it. Has anyone ever wondered if any of the "other side" ever stop for just a moment and wonder why they actually believe this stuff?

So you think that some of us may already believe that our faith is wrong, but we are sticking along for the ride? Clever analogy of the heart by the way

As for whether we stop and think for a moment why we believe this stuff. I think myself, Fanny Craddock, PDN and others will account for doubt as a natural part of faith. Yes, I have doubted my faith on quite a few occasions, in most cases it was a beneficial process which allowed for me to seek answers and to progress further in my faith. Many would see doubt as the means by which God tests Christians. So if I am to be entirely honest with you, I've had several doubting periods in my faith.

Overblood wrote: »

"Not the slightest shred of evidence."

If you'd like a more in-depth answer, you should start here.

I knew that you would post a smart-ass answer like this . It's a part of the way you post though, and I've often done the same to you in return. The A&A forum entertainer perhaps?

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

I knew that you would post a smart-ass answer like this .

:pac:

What I meant from the post was that nearly every thread here in A&A has an answer to your question and it has been discussed 10^234 times already.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

What makes you certain that God is less probable to exist than not? Just curious?

Can I post a simple scenario to you.

You have to get from point A) to point , along this route there will be a steep downward hill. You walk into a vehicle lot and a man approaches you. He says he has a variety of vehicles, cars, buses, sports cars... etc, however he knows most of them do not have brakes, and thinks only 1 of them might have brakes, however, in all likelihood none of them have breaks. He then shows you a bicycle, and says you can clearly see it has breaks and knows it has working gears. He offers you to take one of them for your journey. Which do you take?

Mena

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Can I post a simple scenario to you.

You have to get from point A) to point , along this route there will be a steep downward hill. You walk into a vehicle lot and a man approaches you. He says he has a variety of vehicles, cars, buses, sports cars... etc, however he knows most of them do not have brakes, and thinks only 1 of them might have brakes, however, in all likelihood none of them have breaks. He then shows you a bicycle, and says you can clearly see it has breaks and knows it has working gears. He offers you to take one of them for your journey. Which do you take?

Does the fact that I would opt for one of the "sports cars" that probably has no brakes make me a bad person?

Sounds like a hell of a ride.

JimiTime

velocirafter wrote: »

Oh god created life, well thats wrapped everything up in a nice little package, we can tick that one off the list then:p

If God created life, who created god? Where does he hang out? What does he do in his spare time? Is he a she?

God is in no way a reasonable answer for where life came from its just a failure to even tackle the topic

I wont deal with the discrepencies of your post as to do so will take us away on a tangeant. I will instead correct you on what you think my point was. Though I do believe God is the creator, that had nothing to do with my point to AH. His point was that 'Gods existance is not required to explain anything we currently observe'. My point is that 'Life is observable yet unexplained, so you do not know if God is required or not.'. That is not a statement of 'God did it'. It is a statement that you don't know if he's required or not.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Are wolfsbane, PDN, and Jimmi the die hard religious though? I mean these people (as far as I know, I'm not sure of wolfsbanes case) came to Christianity due to being convinced of their own free will. It isn't that they had faith from the get go. I see no reason from the POV of an atheist why these people if they have gone in freely can also return to their previous state freely. However, as a Christian I personally don't think they will lose their faith.

They cannot afford to lose their faith.

Jakkass wrote: »

So you think that some of us may already believe that our faith is wrong, but we are sticking along for the ride? Clever analogy of the heart by the way

Why thank you.:D

Jakkass wrote: »

As for whether we stop and think for a moment why we believe this stuff. I think myself, Fanny Craddock, PDN and others will account for doubt as a natural part of faith. Yes, I have doubted my faith on quite a few occasions, in most cases it was a beneficial process which allowed for me to seek answers and to progress further in my faith. Many would see doubt as the means by which God tests Christians. So if I am to be entirely honest with you, I've had several doubting periods in my faith.

But that is not really what I am talking about. I mean more a deep seating feeling that it is all wrong. A feeling that you (not necessarily you in particular) keep suppressing as you can’t afford to believe it.

Wolfsbane believes that atheists know god exists and we simply deny it so we can eat babies and do all the other things that we can do that you can’t. He thinks that belief in god is so obviously right that we must be intentionally denying it. What benefit do we get from denying it? I live as a good person. I am not a Christian but I am a better person than many alleged Christians I have met. What benefit to I get form denying that which I supposedly know?

I think the opposite is true. It is so stupendously and blindingly obvious that your god is so unlikely to exist that you guys must know this but carry on a charade. You reason might be sound. For PDN it is how he makes his living and he believes, sadly in my opinion, that his life would not be worth living without god. Without god Wolfsbane believes he would be an uncontrollable murdering rapist without god. People like this cannot afford to lose their faith.

So I suppose that is the difference. Atheist gain nothing by denying the existence of god. If I was to suddenly realise that it was all true and I became a believer I have lost nothing.

This is not the same for believers. For some if they lose their faith they will lose everything. Who could someone allow that to happen?

MrP

Stercus Accidit

Mena wrote: »

Does the fact that I would opt for one of the "sports cars" that probably has no brakes make me a bad person?

Sounds like a hell of a ride.

The sports car is one of the exciting religions I imagine, like ultra christianity, or space Buddhism, but they won't be around until the cyber rapture, an electronic angel told me, before flying away on his rocket cycle.

Prove It didn't happen! There, flawless argument, now, sports car down a hill with no brakes isn't any religion we have today, maybe a fred flintstone car that makes you feel guilty and wear a blindfold, theres your analogy.