601. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171622 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Pray do so... or rather don't pray... feel free to do so. However, I have to say that while I am familiar with his position and have read some of his papers, I haven't read that particular book... If you still think I could be of service, I would be glad to do so...


How's the procrastination on the Tennant-debate coming along? :P Just kidding.

602. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171617 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 4:12 pm

And concerning that article - I am one third laughing, one third sad and one third afraid.

603. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171615 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Decius,

I didn't say all of them. I live in Germany, where Christianity (while still nominally encompassing about 66-70% of the population) is very moderate. Most theists I have met were entirely amicable - their tacit beliefs and some of their explicit beliefs aren't... but they usually do their best to ignore or attempt to explain away the dogma that is disgusting. Except for childhood indoctrination...

Anyway, I am perfectly aware that there are some with which I could not be friends, or have respect for as social agents (but still as human beings).

Steve,
indeed - but you forgot three attributes: "personal, transcendent (non-physical), interventionist" :)

604. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171612 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Karda,

yes I did, although I must confess that I wasn't paying much attention.

Splitters? Who? The Popular Front? Definitely! The Judean People's Front? Certainly! The People's Front of Judea? Absolutely!.... wait...

605. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171605 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 3:50 pm

My my, I'm away for a few hours... and so much happened.

the way Dawkins and many others treat is that religion is evil, god CANNOT exist and all theists are deluded and less intelligent than atheists.

I'm sure you know the saying "hate the sin, love the sinner"... well, I am a strong atheist and an anti-theist. I do think religion and superstition in general are probably the greatest scourges of mankind. I am certain that any concept of god sufficiently similar to that of Judaism, Islam and Christianity cannot have a real referent, ie that such a god cannot exist. Theism is logically incoherent. Many arguments for the impossibility of god exist, and many do for the improbability of god, even if such an entity were possible.

That doesn't mean that I despise any theist just because he's a theist, or think that he's evil. Not at all. Belief without sufficient epistemic justification is irrational, dangerous and should be discouraged. Dogma is always a discouragement of individual thought and dissent, the claim to absolute, irrevocable knowledge - yet without any evidence. It suppresses freedom of thought, liberty of conscience and a real search for the truth. Index Librorum Prohibitorum ring a bell?

I also find religious indoctrination of children unable to give their informed consent evil, because it limits the child's ability to fully recognize and make use of their freedom of thought, liberty of conscience and in extension freedom of religion - that's what the doctrine of hell is all about. But it's not just that - I could go on and on about this.
Not to mention practices such as refusing medical treatment for one's children for religious reasons and so on and so forth.

Yes, religion is a scourge and god is impossible as well as improbable even if he wasn't impossible. But that doesn't mean I cannot be friends with theists, respect them or have rational, amicable discussions with them. I have done so all my life.

606. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171189 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 10:58 am

Off to catch my train to Munich guys - be on again in about 5 hours I guess... that is if I'm not firmly asleep by then.

Bye.

607. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171170 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 10:48 am

work for the federal government

Now I'm feeling slightly sick.

608. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171161 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 10:43 am

What do liberals know about war? Well, many of us know that it's a terrible thing best to be avoided - and that uncritically joining a military - out of nationalism - whose leaders might send you into an unjust war is not exactly moral behaviour.

I will hope one day one will not be able to use it for homoerotic reasons.

Will you? You called us Nazis? Pot - Kettle!

609. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171137 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 10:29 am

Oh boy - and we thought remnant was an idiot?

This guy doesn't even get that atheists don't believe in the actuality of any fictional characters, including satan... and that satanists are those who believe in and worship that particular fictional character.

Let's see - an idiot, probably a worshipper of a genocidal, megalomaniacal, infanticidal, filicidal, torturing, homophobic celestial dictator, a homophobe, a nationalist... and did I say idiot?

Please stay - you're a prime example of why we're right.

610. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171123 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 10:22 am

Oh if a man voices his opinion he's a troll?

If a man comes on here insulting people, showing a hatred of homosexuals, calling people Nazis, not advancing arguments, instead only interested in provocation... yep, that qualifies as a troll.

You are given a chance to correct yourself, apologise and engage in debate. Please do so. If you cannot or do not want to, you will have to live with the label of "troll". And people on here will ignore you. Capable of rational debate? Show it. Otherwise, I'm sure irate has a word just for you.

611. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171109 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 10:14 am

I don't pray for satanists! And our proud forefathers didn't die so a fag like star spangled eagle could drape the flag like a fagrobe.

My goodness, ignorant of Stephen Colbert to boot...
The troll button is there, and I think I'm going to use it... together with the offensive button.

Morally challanged did I say? I have to correct myself - you show a disgusting character.

612. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171106 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

So phatbat, do you think your grandma is wormfood or in hell?

Speaking for myself - everything we know and can rationally assume is that my grandmother is no more. What remains is the impact she made on the lives of many people, the love and warmth she gave. It is not she that is wormfood - because her brain has completely ceased to work.

As for "or in hell"... you are seriously morally challanged (aside from being grammatically, orthographically and in general intellectually challanged).

613. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171082 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 9:54 am

Karda,

When this compound of beliefs is tacitly affirmed withou being given much thought, I agree. But when it is explicitly affirmed as just in a society whose moral standards are in obvious contrast with this, I stand by my comment above.

614. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171063 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 9:33 am

A deluded person actually worshipping (the idea of) a god that tortures people for all eternity who don't obey him, and proclaiming themselves to be moral... that is disgusting, and deserves contempt.

Doesn't mean that one should not try to get them to abandom this belief, ie to correct them... but compound of believs (god sends people to hell, god is loving and just, the believer is a moral person) is itself despicable and entirely immoral.

... this is only slightly different from the compound of beliefs (Hitler sends people to extermination camps, Hitler is a just and honorable leader doing the right thing, the believer in this is a moral person). The difference is that what Hitler did doesn't measure up against the crimes of this (idea of) God.

So it does deserve contempt and correction.

615. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171020 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 8:41 am

Thanks to all of you!

I'd much rather trust a native German than you....

Really? Then I'm glad to be of service - here you are:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page5#165318

616. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170981 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 8:02 am

Thanks, Karda and Philip.

I am okay - it hurts now and then, but at least her suffering has finally had an end... I just hope my father will be okay. When my grandfather died in 2006, and he went up to his bed to say goodbye before the hearse came was the first time I saw him cry in my entire life. Taking into account that he was much closer to his mother thant to his father, I'm somewhat worried. But then, he too sees it like I do... finally no more suffering.

Anyway, thanks.

617. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170964 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 7:29 am

While this is now already ancient past (more than a page back), I just wanted to say this:

How is it that rates of depression, violent crimes, teenage pregnancies, and STI/STD's have risen dramatically since prayer was taken out of school? Richard Dawkins, you will bow to your Creator someday; that is a fact. I hope you face it before you die.
"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

Four fallacies in a single insane rant: Post hoc ergo propter hoc, ad baculo, unstated major premise, bare assertion fallacy.

Exactly. And showing an utterly indecent, immoral character to boot.

Example:
I've just come from my grandmother's funeral. I have loved her dearly, she was a very kind and loving woman who has done nothing but good in her life. She had to suffer a lot. Her family was driven away from their home for many generations by the french after WWII, her father lost his buiseness and they were re-settled here in this town. She lost her third son shortly after his birth, but raised my father and his brother in a very loving and caring manner. I have practically spent more time with her than with my parents when I was small, and she was one of the most wonderful people I've ever met - the perfect grandmother.

Her last few years were filled with pain, as she suffered several strokes over the last years. First she lost the ability to walk, but regained it to a degree. Then, in January 2006 her husband died. One night she fell out of bed, hit her head and had another stroke - and lay on the floor of her bedroom in her house all alone calling for her sons until she was found in the early morning.
That stroke destroyed some of her cognitive ability and most of her ability to walk. She had to move in to a home for the aged, since neither my parents nor my uncle had the means to take care of her. There, her condition deteriorated constantly... at the beginning she could speak, walk a few steps and was always happy to see us. At the end she barely said a word, and we didn't know if she recognized us. She had to be moved to the hospital - just stared at the ceiling for most of the time.

Saturday last week I went to see her in the hospital. We were told that it could be any day now. I talked to her, tended to her and then said goodbye.
Monday she died - and now, a week later, was her funeral.

She wasn't religious, left the church in the 60s. When she died, we open her last will - she wrote that she wanted an anonymous funeral, with only family members and her closest friends attending. She didn't want to cause any trouble - even after death. She always thought of the well-being of her family more than of her own.

There's a wonderful sentence in German, "Es war die Mutter, was brauchts der Worte mehr".

"It was the mother, what more is there to say"

Am I sad - yes, very. But I am also very glad that her suffering finally has come to an end. And I know she will be remembered as the wonderful person she was.

The ceremony was non-religious. The speaker spoke of life being given its meaning only by death, by our awareness that it will all end one day for everyone, and that this is what makes us capable of filling our lives with meaning. It was very touching.

When I imagine what it would be like if the Christian God, or the Muslim God existed - I am disgusted. She, as an unbeliever, would have to suffer in hell for all eternity, tortured beyond imagination. She, the loving mother and grandmother, she that gave so much and filled the lives of her family members with joy.

What an absolutely despicable thought. How immensely immoral.

I am truly glad to know that there is no celestial dictator, no afterlife, no hell. Only thus is is life meaningful, only thus can a person, after a morning of youth, a midday of having a family and raising kids, of seeing them grow and an evening of seeing them have kids as well, and taking care of them with love finally go to sleep, knowing that everything has its time, and that all in all, it was good.

How can people honestly worship a supposed deity of this kind as just and loving? I cannot understand this. "you will bow to your Creator someday" - what an utterly despicable thought.

P.S.: Sorry for being so off-topic. I did not mean to bore you with a story, or fish for compassion or something like that. Just thought I'd say how this makes me feel, and how clear it became to me today that Christianity is so utterly immoral.

618. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170617 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Well, let's not forget that there were societies where murder was accepted... the maya, who played games for the honor of being sacrificed for example, or the head-hunter tribes.

...meaning it's not that simple.

619. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170614 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Counting out the clinical cases of sociopathy - we do share certain moral standards. We don't think killing is generally a good thing, we don't think raping is generally a good thing etc.

We want a stable society, and from that, a lot follows. Morality is both to a certain degree evolved (as evolutionary stable strategies), and can be gotten rationally, for example from John Rawls' thought experiment of the original position. Or take utilitarianism.

Of course the fact that those moral values that can be gotten rationally will not necessarily conform to the finer details of the moral code of a specific person or group (political for example), isn't a counterargument against this. It just means that certain "moral values" are arbitrary, political/religious/social inventions and not necessary.

620. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170553 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 8:30 pm

TheTruthID,

there is one major point which seems to be at the root of many of your problems with evolution:

It's not a theory of chance. The mutations are random, yes - but natural selection is not. Fequency of mutation and interval between generations are factors here. Given enough generations, enough time - natural selection will do the job.

The eye didn't evolve "by chance", not even once. Light-sensitivity of cells can provide a benefit for the individual... if that is the case, natural selection will favour that, and given enough time, eyes can evolve. Hugely different eyes at that. Compare the eye of a hawk with that of a fly - the differences are immense.

621. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170524 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 8:05 pm

I feel our society is gradually deteriorating when it comes to our universal moral standards.

I don't think it's that bad... but even if so, religion is not necessarily the answer. Take a look at the societies under theocratic rule - take a look at medieval Europe for example. The situation in the US is nowehere near as bad. Of course, "social deterioration concerning morality" is very much a matter of perspective.

Proponents of monarchy in France would have (and did) say the same about the introduction of democracy. Proponents of theocracy say the same about religious freedom etc.

622. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170511 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:55 pm

:)
____________


Say, where's smellhound?
Wow, first smellhound being a nice chap and now this from Adam... I think we're under a charm-offensive :)

Of course, there's still melissa, defending god's genocides and munchhausen-by-proxy-syndrom as "love".

623. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170503 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm

annabanana,

you have a serious error in the second line of your comment... I know it wasn't intentional... but it distorts the meaning quite a bit :)

624. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170502 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Adam,

I commend you for having the courage and honesty for your apology!

625. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170496 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Brian,

sure, here you go:

This (with the "related documents" at the right side - they are essential):

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/davies.html

and this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html


Should keep you busy for a while :)

626. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170494 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Well, if anyone is suffering from Munchhausen's syndrom by proxy, it's definitely the Christian God:

Omnicient, making humans so that he knew they would use their "free will" (however that is to be reconciled with omniscience) to be sinful, then placing them in a world full of tests and full of pain and agony (by far not all due to acts of free will) - just to send them himself as his son to "save them" from eternal, infinite torture which he would otherwise bestow upon them.

Please - "God doesn't want anyone to go to hell"... obviously he does, those who do not do as he says. He's a celestial dictator who tortures people for disobeying him. Only that with real dictators, the torture ends at death.

God's is a blackmailer in that regard. It's like "I don't want to have to torture you... all you have to do is obey me, love me, worship me... Or you WILL be tortured forever! Am I not merciful?"

Honestly, anyone seeing this as kind and loving has a serious ethical problem.

It's also just like Munchhausen's by proxy - your god knew how his human's would turn out, after all he is supposed to be omniscient. First he creates them so that they do terrible things to one another (rape, genocide, torture for example), and then throws them into a world where they suffer even more through tsunamis, disease, volcano-eruptions, droughts, hunger etc.

Then he comes in to "save them" from the evils he created... what an asshole.

Or he kills them... or he tortures them.
Face it - your God is worse than Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Gengis Khan, Kim Jong Il and all the other dictators and mass-murderers combined.

627. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170478 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm

I myself haven't gone through the entire exchange of papers between Craig and Oppy... and it's hard to find exactly where Craig is wrong. As I said, he is competent - albeit his character is more than questionable, and his position wrong.

But he does provide food for thought.

628. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170468 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Nah, Brian - your point is valid (at least I think so), I just wanted to provide a justification for my position.

629. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170465 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Brian

in your case, the suppressed premise can be know to be true because its scope in that case is so narrow. You only make a statement about yourself, you have that tacit premise, and you have justification for believing it.

Many people are not even aware that this has to be a premise in the argument, and that it needs justification. Therefore, they don't include it - not because they are aware of it and think it is universally shared. Many don't even see this as something in need for independent justification.


Anyway - let's leave it at that.

630. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170463 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:47 pm

so your problem is more with following the particular tenants of any religion than with belief in God period?

I have a problem with both - see above. The main problem is accepting statements as true without proper epistemic justification, and with certain "tennents of faith" being entrenched and unquestionable... That's (at the very least the former) is what belief in God is. My problem with that? See above.

631. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170459 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:43 pm

smellhound,

you will have to excuse us - we love debating... I for one cherish it... I find an actual discussion/debate, rationally conducted to be wonderful :)

very true, but then shouldnt your argument be against using faith as an excuse to do things that we generally see as unacceptable rather than just against faith period. The vast majority of believers in any religion don't use it as an excuse to kill someone.

At whom was this directed? At what comment?

Faith itself - the acceptance of certain statements about supposed matters of fact as true without sufficient epistemic justification is itself irrational, it should be discouraged - enlightenment is of tantamount importance for the acquisition of real knowledge, for the proper justification of ethical behaviour and for the survival of our species. The above is incompatible with this.

632. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170453 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm

charity demands that we interpret such arguments as enthymatic, and usually this is easy enough. For example, we should understand 'X is pleasant, therefore X is good' as an enthymeme whose suppressed premise is 'Whatever is pleasant is good'.

As I stated, I do not subscribe to the interpretation of the author of that entry in the encyclopedia... and without this, it is a fallacy...

But that's of no real importance, methinks. Call it what you will :)

633. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170448 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:36 pm

The naturalistic fallacy (yes, it is a fallacy :) encompasses (but is not limited to) the less theoretical "is/ought"-fallacy.

George Edward Moore, Principia Ethica - talk about this specifically.

634. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170443 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:34 pm

away from the natural human thought that there is an almighty being and an after life,

Oh please, that is not a "natural human thought" - that is indoctrinated, conditioned.
What is natural, human is that our pattern and intentionality-detection mechanisms have a tendency to provide more false positives than false negatives. We tend to see intentionality and action where there is none. Astrology, Alchemy, "magic", lightning being an act of a deity, rain and wind also etc... but we can counteract this through rationality.

And by far the least deities in human history were said to be truly almighty.

Finally:

I have said this before, but you chose to ignore it. This:

it should also drive you away from morality

is bullshit.

Aside from the fact that ethical behaviour is beneficial - have you ever heard of philosophical ethics? What's at work there is rationality, not faith.

635. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170436 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:28 pm

not to the point of ruling out the presence of a supernatural being

You're right - that is just made improbable by the vidence. It's logic that finally rules it out for good :)

Brian,

Just to be pedantic, it's a mistake identify a natural quality with a non-natural quality, not a fallacy. Let's start the habit of calling it the 'naturalistic-mistake'. A fallacy implies poor logical form.
There's nothing bad about the logical form of:

Snake poison is natural
What is natural is good
Therefore snake poison is good.

But it does seem a mistake ;)

No, it is a fallacy, because usually, the second part is not given explicitly as a premis, which renders the logical form of this fallacious.

Furthermore, if it is mentioned explicitly, it takes the form of

Premise: x is natural
Conclusion: x is morally good

Making this connection without introducing (and justifying) the second premise - that's the fallacy.

636. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170430 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Smellhound, - see my last post.

Natural doesn't mean "good". Diseases are natural, and we're fighting them too.

Why fight religion? The answer would be too long - let's just say that it comes down to valuing independent thought and rationality, to the rational judgement that only through rationality can mankind survive, to subversion of science, of freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, to the fact that standards of rationality apply and that we feel bound to stand up where they are violated etc

...but this is not the issue at hand, so let's not get into that for now.

637. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170423 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:20 pm

riandouglas,

;)

smellhound,

Then since morality is natural because it gives you good feelings etc., then isn't faith in an almighty being natural too since it gives people good feeling. If so, why waste time fighting it?

You are still committing the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" - identifying a natural quality with a non-natural quality.

In more everyday-terms, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" (though that is inaccurate, the above covers it better).

You cannot say "it ought to be so because it is natural" - doesn't work.

I have a gut-feeling you are ascribing this to science - that Darwinists do (or have to anyway) support some form of social darwinism. This is not the case. Science doesn't care about these things - it cannot make prescriptive statements of any kind. Science provides ever-improving models of what is; It cannot say anything about what ought to be or not ought to be.

638. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170416 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:14 pm

All of you who point out the role of emotion in moral judgements are right (though it's not just emotion - conceptual thinking does enter into it)... but I think smellhound is asking a different question, namely that of prescriptive justification (ethical justification), not that of the fuctional explanation of why we do that and how.

Both can be answered.

639. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170412 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:11 pm

See, I do things too because I judge them to be the right thing to do. But that judgement doesn't require intrinsic, metaphysically objective moral values. Nothing of the sort. Any ethical theory provides a theory of moral justification. Utilitarianism, Contractualism, Prima Facie deontology, Kantian ethics... all of them. And many of them don't require metaphysically objective values in order to give an account of moral justification.

You might want to study philosophical ethics and metaethics - Philosophers have thought about morality for half a millenium before your religion even got started :)

Anyway - You can be an atheist and still believe in abstract entities, such as objective moral values - I don't, but one certainly can.

640. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170404 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm

The question: "Why be altruistic"? Has several aspects. The one is the question about prescriptive justification - what prescribes that? This is a question of ethics.

The other is a question of game theory.

I suggest you look into "Evolutionary Stable Strategy", "tit for tat", "tit for two tats" and "game theory" at wikipedia.

Concerning the first, I have written a lot about that recently - maybe others can direct you via my "Other comments by"...

My points were:
-Science is always only descriptive. No moral values or imperatives can be inferred from descriptive statements. Nor can any moral imperative be more or less compatible with any descriptive statement.

-Theistic ethics don't work, the ethical theory is incoherent or insufficient

and

-There are working ethical theories that do not require inherent, objective moral values and yet do provide a basis for what we would intuitively call "ethical behaviour".

641. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170275 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Corylus, - yes I have... disgusting.

642. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170263 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Steve,
they don't convince me either... but try to find out exactly where the arguments fail, it's not that easy.

riandouglas,

those are dealt with on the pages I linked, too.
Unconvincing - supposed "eyewitness testimony" that wasn't real. (See also the page "Contra Craig")
But then he also said if he went back in time and found nothing of the sort he believes happened, he would still believe it...

643. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170232 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Don't underestimate William Lane Craig... he is extremely good at constructing arguments. His papers in defence of the kalam cosmological argument are really good (though ultimately, I opine, unconvincing). His "Holy Spirit Epistemology" on the other hand... let's not talk about that one.

Anyway - a competent philosopher arguinging at times brilliantly in defence of something absurdly ridiculous.

His papers on the kalam, the rebuttals and their successive rebuttals should interest especially those generally interested in Cosmology

see e.g. here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/davies.html

(including the "related documents")

More on Craig here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html

644. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169874 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 2:50 am

You're right, epeeist... I didn't think of that. I guess I tend to forget that a partitioned and potentially malnourished mind can be incapable of processing these arguments either because of a lack of intellectual faculty (don't think that happens often, though) or because of blocking mechanisms and a lack of experience in this kind of thinking.

645. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169861 by MPhil on April 27, 2008 at 2:07 am

I tend to go slightly further referring to "your god" or Yahweh when referring to the Christian deity. As you intimate using "God" gives some validity to their claims, however the use of "god" still provides the validity but looks petty.

Oh I really don't think we give one inch by using "God" or "god". I don't refer to Faust as "the fictional character 'Faust'" or say "Your Easter Bunny". I think I just don't really care because I am usually very clear that I intend the reference to be to a fictional character. Specifically the fictional character the one I am addressing judges to be real.

As for the "non-existence until proved otherwise" I am happy to agree with theists that I cannot disprove the existence of their god, I can only show the low probability.

I do not tire of stating this, but once we have a definite description on the part of the theist, and that includes 'personhood, agency, being non-spatio-temporal, immutable, perfect, creator, intervener'etc we can disprove that.

See also here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/logical.html

Especially "A Disproof of God's existence" and "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey"... and then have a look at the utterly ridiculous counter-arguments against the latter.

646. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169836 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 11:22 pm

If he exists

I think that should be a counterfactual - "If 'he' existed". And it still warrants standing in the way of those who want a theocracy based on worship of and obedience to this particular fictional figure.

647. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169832 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 11:05 pm

This is crime against humanity of the highest order.

...and now we wait for the "The standards of men are not the standards of God"-comment, the "You can't judge God, least of all by human standards"-comment...

Any standard that does not condemn such things as disgusting, immoral behaviour of the worst kind is completely incompatible with any standard that can exist in a just and stable society - no standard that I would want to have anything to do with.

And aside from that, interestingly, we can judge God's behaviour to be kind and loving by our standards - and no one objects... but not to be injust and incredibly cruel by any standard?

Does it reek of inconsistency? I think it does.

-Mike

648. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169548 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 9:16 am

Ah, someone from "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue" evidentally... as I have never had access to that, I can't relate. But since I'm generally very fond of british comedy - I'm sure the loss is immense.

649. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169545 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 9:11 am

Okay, I give up... who died? Sorry, "Oxford Circus" doesn't ring a bell for me... :(

650. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169539 by MPhil on April 26, 2008 at 9:00 am

Yes, indeed.... but I found it strange nevertheless.