101. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #98470 by Spinoza on December 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm

I am a duck with four wooden legs.

Don't believe me?

Yeah, well I don't believe in your God, so we're even.

The evidence for my amputee mutant talking typing duck status is actually higher than for religious beliefs anyway. hehe

102. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #97952 by Spinoza on December 12, 2007 at 9:44 pm

In a nutshell i honestly feel that my sexual pleasure is reduced by circumcision and that fucks me off as we only live once.

Well mine isn't.

So now what?

103. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #97950 by Spinoza on December 12, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Comment #47:

If I had a kid and decided I didn't like its earlobes, I doubt I would be able to find a surgeon willing to remove them for me.

Um, yes you would if the reason you didn't like them was that one was far larger than the other, or they were simply far too large.

In fact, I'm SURE that kind of surgery is done all the time.

104. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97317 by Spinoza on December 11, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Damien, Judaism requires it too (generally practiced in Orthodox only, but try and figure out how many Jewish women wear wigs... I bet you wouldn't even know had I not just told you!), and Christianity used to.

Only recently has Christianity stopped with the modesty of dress requirement.

ALL religions have misogyny and anti-sexual elements.

It just happens to be that Islam is the largest one left that has the most of those two elements still left in practice.

It is that old xenophobic 'rag-head' (or in this case, 'bag-head') sort of talk that makes me angry at my fellow atheists.

It isn't that they require a 'bag' to be worn on their heads, the women wear head-scarves because it's the traditional way to meet the requirement for modesty (hijab). Some sects go further, but in the Quran it is not mandated that women be forced to wear anything... it just says that women should dress modestly... whatever that means.

As Janus pointed out, there is a significant 'Arabization' that occurred in Islam, and has resulted in a lingering tribal mentality and a really piss-poor morality.

105. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97072 by Spinoza on December 11, 2007 at 11:08 am

Err... well... it is certainly true that there is more to "religion" than belief... Any atheist who denies that is lying to themselves... or is just an idiot...

One of the reasons religions are so pervasive is that they encompass culture and nationalism and law AS WELL AS resting on a foundation of supernaturalism.

But that foundation is not the religion itself, that foundation is God-belief (or theism).

We atheists need to quit making the same error the religious are making.

When we criticize RELIGION, we need to focus only on religion. When we criticize god-belief/theism, we can safely ignore religion and abstract away from it.

They are two separate issues.

Other than that though, this article is quite stupid.

106. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96758 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Perhaps some atheists should be quiet lest they make themselves look like idiots?

107. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96755 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Diacanu, what exactly is it that is making you so terse?

108. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96749 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Someone hasn't read their Freud.

Lol. (cf. "Oceanic Feeling")

In any case... Diacauu... Your point is moot, since it doesn't really matter whether people are born with tendencies to deify or with innate supernatural leanings... they'd still be false beliefs even if everybody had them.

109. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96743 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:45 pm

I would add that we are at least CLEARLY born A-religious.

The born-atheism argument is tougher, since it is, in all likelihood, the childish notion of attributing spirit where there isn't any (imaginary friends, animated inanimate objects, etcetera) that lead to God-belief in the first place.

So one might say we are all born without religion but with a naive "god-belief"... it just so happens that that little gem of evolutionary trickery develops into a lot of arbitrary and false beliefs...

110. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96740 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 9:43 pm

The Burden of Proof is on the promulgator of a theory, not on the denier of it.

111. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96565 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 5:57 pm

God not existing has nothing to do with religion.

Q.E.D.

112. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #96518 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 4:57 pm

HA! I just realized... this stuff is like Fan-Fiction for Atheism Books...

Inspired by it, but with far poorer skill!

Now if only they'd do an MPreg version... ahahah.

:|

113. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96062 by Spinoza on December 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Is it just me, or are those guys who use weights and stuff to try and create a new foreskin FUCKING INSANE?

That shit is even weirder than circumcision is in the first place!

... oh, and as for the "getting there"... that was my point, it can be seen as beneficial, in that uncircumcised men might "get there" too quickly.

114. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96049 by Spinoza on December 9, 2007 at 9:47 pm

GSP, your last statement is not really based on any evidence.

The original motivations for circumcision are crazy, yes... (it has always been amusing to think of how it must have come about...)

However, to say that it's automatically a negative is a bit odd...

Seems to me that the data says that circumcised orgasms are just as intense as non-circumcised...

Not only that, but one could make the case that circumcision allows one to last longer in bed...

It's a tough question, certainly...

I probably won't circumcise my kid(s)...

115. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94001 by Spinoza on December 4, 2007 at 3:05 pm

In accordance with the rules of Islam, Muslims are required to pray five times a day.

NOT IF THEY'RE SICK!

... this is why we should all study religion...

The NHS are obviously scared of pissing people off...

Of course, in this case, it's absolutely ridiculous since Islam DOESN'T require sick people to pray.

116. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93684 by Spinoza on December 3, 2007 at 10:52 pm

That is an incredibly idiotic statement JanChan.

The Burqa isn't even a "Muslim" garment... it is an interpretation of the command to dress modestly in the Quran. The Quran itself doesn't mention the Burqa at all... it's more a product of patriarchal control of women than anything.

And second of all, MANY Muslim women in the west DON'T wear burqas (neither do most of them in Turkey or Lebanon or other non-Islamic states with majority Muslim populations...).

Thirdly, many Jewish and Christian (orthodox) women often wear wigs or head-scarves in public JUST AS many Muslim women do... this is a more lax form of the call for modest dress... and it has a long tradition in ALL the Abrahamic religions.

Fourthly, it's none of your damn business what they wear. Just as women in the West can choose to wear halter-tops and mini-skirts without being harassed, so too can Muslim women choose to dress modestly.

Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with what religious people WEAR.

For fuck's sake.

117. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93653 by Spinoza on December 3, 2007 at 8:24 pm

So far it's boring me... ugh

118. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93171 by Spinoza on December 2, 2007 at 11:10 am

Ya know, such an article wouldn't bother me in the slightest, if it weren't totally ignorant of the history of religious criticism.

The same irrationality and writing off of criticism has been going on for hundreds of years in academic form.

People need to go back and read the letters that were written and the articles that were published during the Atheism controversy of the late 1700s (in the wake of a revival of Spinozism).

That and the earlier controversies over Spinoza's philosophy when he first wrote it.

See: http://www.bookrags.com/research/atheismusstreit-eoph/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fichtejg.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism_controversy

http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/let7476.htm#TOP

Etc.

119. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93008 by Spinoza on December 2, 2007 at 12:01 am

Denevius, what? That's exactly the same as saying "Women can complain all they want, but non-suffrage is here to stay as long as women are emotional and non-rational."

Surely that is not what you meant to say.

I think you meant to say something else, and I think you may be right... What you seem to have meant is that the majority of people on earth are too stupid to think for themselves, or do the intellectual leg-work to come to the realizations that intellectual atheists have come to...

But I think it's scarier than that...

... I also think we need to TRY our damnedest (no pun intended), to BRING THE FACTS to people, and to try and lift them up out of their "dogmatic slumber" as Hume did to Kant... and as public education has improved the intelligence of enormous numbers... so too could continued (and length) criticism of religion (which began the instant religions were created) bring more and more people to the truth.

And there is much value in that.

120. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92994 by Spinoza on December 1, 2007 at 10:52 pm

... This is the most idiotic display of sophistry I have ever seen.

The loudest too.

I want to debate Dinesh.

I would destroy him.

121. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92738 by Spinoza on December 1, 2007 at 11:23 am

I wonder what people here think of Dennett's proposition that we should teach world religion.

122. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92597 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Christ, how I dislike Christianity.

123. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92595 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Yes, I was glad to see him make that point about Einstein (one that I make ALL THE TIME, seeing as how Einstein was as big a fan of Spinoza as I am, if not bigger...).

I have recently begun to try and develop a position explaining why Pantheism, at least in the Spinozistic or monistic naturalist sense, is effectively equivalent to atheism, and differs only with respect to the use of that one little 3-letter epithet. The one that makes people think Einstein was a theist.

Careful reading of many seemingly theistic philosophers of the early modern period often reveals a calculated and extremely effective means of undermining the orthodoxy... whilst simultaneously SEEMING to retain non-heterodox language.

That is "Spinoza: The God-intoxicated atheist."

Or Hobbes, who was clearly a materialist, atheist, who mentions God many times over in Leviathan... (for obvious reasons).

I have often thought that a great way to destroy "religion" (as it has been hitherto practiced for the most part) would be to simply usurp and redefine the word "God", as Spinoza's God... and to redefine "pious" in Spinoza's terms... as love of "God" (meaning nature).

In such terms, Prof. Dawkins (as I'm sure he knows) is one of the most pious men alive. (as are all we men of the mind who live by knowledge or rationalism).

... which is why I come down so hard on the apparently anti-intellectual side of the "new atheism" movement...

It does matter WHY people believe what they believe, insofar as rationality requires it of you.

124. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92588 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 8:47 pm

I like this guy. And I'm one of the biggest critics of my fellow atheists.

... really well-spoken.

Whoever thinks he's crude is just using the word wrongly.

He is being RUDE, but not unjustifiably :)

125. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92539 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Quine, yes, but lets be CLEAR. Con men make their business in ambiguity and ignorance (of Sinn and Bedeutung).

Philosophers make their business doing just the opposite, in the Aufklärung and Abklärung of words.

126. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92538 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 6:09 pm

A good friend of mine (a Palestinian by origin) who grew up in Saudi Arabia will point out that many Muslims do not care about lying to kafirs... they will utter blatant contradictions, and think nothing of it.

... I'm no racist, quite the contrary, but Ed Husain... though I cannot see him, gives off a sense of insincerity about him... that sort of "I know Islam so I can tell you whatever I want about it and you have to believe me."

Don't like it....

127. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92529 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 5:42 pm

What the hell. :|

He did it again.

EPISTEMOLOGY IS THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT ONTOLOGY!!!

... good reasons to keep philosophers around :)

We don't play GAMES with words.

'Words' is serious business.

128. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92524 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Gregg messed up the meaning of 'epistemological'.

He meant 'metaphysical'.

"Why are we here?" is NOT an epistemological question, Mr. Gregg. Go back to PHL101 please.

129. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92521 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 5:21 pm

I have a sneaking suspicion that about 30-80% of Americans like fucking with polls.

130. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92456 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Atheism could be regarded by some as a "type of moralism", particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, to protest against the injustices of the world and world history, he said.

This is an incomplete, but accurate account.

It is accurate in the sense that it recognizes one of the actual reasons for cyclical rises in the number of atheists, or of atheist movements...

It is true. Atheism is a necessity only so long as religions exist... and so long as religions exist, some of their members will inevitably become disillusioned by their bullshit and corruption, and become outspoken atheists.

However, to characterize the POSITION, the metaphysical, philosophical position... as MERELY a reaction to injustice on the part of religions, is fallacious. (too narrow, and it conflates motivation (reasons for belief) with logic/truth (reasons TO believe).

Whether atheists are reacting to religious injustice or not is irrelevant... atheism is TRUE.

131. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91529 by Spinoza on November 28, 2007 at 1:57 pm

and I'm tired of being educated about muslim this and islam that - I don't even wanna hear about it- I just wish it would go AWAY

That is as abhorrent as their view that everyone else should just convert or go away.

Why is it that the public intellectual atheists all advocate teaching world religion in a historical context, and reading the scriptures of religions as works of literature... But the "fans" of these intellectuals don't seem to get it. Wise-up people, advocating self-imposed ignorance is NOT a good way to go about "being" an atheist.

132. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91526 by Spinoza on November 28, 2007 at 1:49 pm

A probe was launched into "The God Delusion" after one reader complained that passages in the book were an assault on "sacred values," Karaaslan said.

Sounds like The South in America...

There was an episode of the Simpsons last year where Kent Brockman swore because Homer spilled coffee on his leg... and the only person who cared was Ned Flanders, BECAUSE HE WAS LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT!!!! Kent loses his job and starts posting anti-censorship rants on Youtube.

... Perfect example.

So insane.

This world royally pisses me off so much sometimes.

If you don't like what someone says about your religion, YOU write a book or a letter to the editor DENOUNCING them and backup your position. Don't fucking ban it or sue them!!! AHHHHHHHH!

Say what you want about North American and European Christians... at least they have the decency to fight back with some semblance of intellect (ignore their flagrant fallacy-mongering...) rather than demanding political action.

133. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91523 by Spinoza on November 28, 2007 at 1:46 pm

pov1400, does that mean the EU should kick France out?

134. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91460 by Spinoza on November 28, 2007 at 11:18 am

Quine, I guess it depends on how he does it...

It might be CONSTRUED as an insult if he says "Haha you got cancer, you cigarette smoking retard!"

or "Your parents are idiots, they let you eat paint chips and now you're dying."

... however, If the translation was careful, there probably shouldn't be a problem...

135. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91268 by Spinoza on November 27, 2007 at 9:25 pm

it is that Muslims still insist that Muhammad is the greatest and most perfect example of a person in the history of the world.

Not all of them will say that, at least not in so many words... intellectual Muslims, like intellectual Christians... will dance around it.

Religions make people double-talk. They speak in contradictions, often without thinking twice...

I have called friends of mine on this MANY times, to the point where they will finally admit it... but of course, rather than conceding my point, they will retract and say "well, there is probably a way for it to make sense but I'm just not doing a good job."

It's very easy to avoid criticism that way.

Let's not make it EVEN easier for them, by saying things that are so easily denied.

136. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91240 by Spinoza on November 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Right... the criticism of Islam (and Catholicism!!!) should be that it takes medieval values to be perfect and immutable... when experience has shown us clearly otherwise.

It's not a "Hey Islam is disgusting because Muhammed was a rapist!"...

That doesn't even make any sense...

Islam is disgusting because women STILL haven't been given very many (if any) rights.

Muslims will argue with you and say that the Surah (Surah 4 if I recall correctly) on Women dictates that women are "equal" to men, because if a man divorces his wife, she gets half his stuff (money and property).

But they always ignore the fact that it's the man who gets to do the divorcing... and a woman who has been divorced is not likely to ever be married again.


... and then there's this:

34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

...

128. If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.

The epitome of backwards-talking contradiction laden gibberish.

137. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91232 by Spinoza on November 27, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Why the obsession with Aisha???

A LOT of cultures, and A LOT of people, for A LOT of the history of mankind have married young girls.

In fact, my great-grandmother was married at 12 or 13 (to an older man, obviously).

It seems quite anachronistic to read the story of Muhammed and Aisha as a story of INTENTIONAL child abuse or rape.

Religion is awful and false enough without us having to read things into it that either aren't there, or would take ridiculous amounts of work to establish (which is just to say, it's a bit silly to try and claim Aisha was raped and that THIS, of all reasons, is why Islam is reprehensible).

Islam is reprehensible in the here and now, not because of some story about the marriage of a man to a child (which went on not just in the Arab tribal world, but in China, and in Europe, and in the indigenous worlds of North America...) but because it has not changed since then.

(and before you jump on me... let me remind you, I'm an atheist... just playing devil's advocate because I see serious errors in the way people at this website deal with religion).

In fact, as much as I find religion sickening, childish, stupid, false, and dangerous... I find the lack of knowledge of religion and world history, and the attitude espoused by some people on this website quite stupid.

Obviously there is a difference, an ignorant atheist will (probably) not commit murder in the name of atheism (except by proxy, as a soldier?)... but the attitude is not dissimilar. And I don't like it.

Please grow up, some of you.

138. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90625 by Spinoza on November 25, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Most non-religious people are idiots... Just like the rest of the population.

*sighs*

139. Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion

Comment #90539 by Spinoza on November 25, 2007 at 1:05 pm

"Many Europeans, as well as leftists in America," Dr. Silver says, "have rejected the traditional Christian God and replaced it with a post-Christian goddess of Mother Nature and a modified Christian eschatology. It isn't a coherent belief system. It might or might not incorporate New Age thinking. But deep down, there's a view that humans shouldn't be tampering with the natural world."

Absolutely 100% true!

And it annoys me to no end.

140. Stem cell breakthrough

Comment #90460 by Spinoza on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 am

I discussed this with a religious friend on my radio show the other day.

Essentially what it boils down to is this:

It's a great breakthrough, sure, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of aborted-fetus-stem-cells.

Fetal-stem-cells are still as morally okay to use as they always have been and should be (since the fetuses are ALREADY DEAD...).

This just gives researches a possible way around dumb laws that are hampering progress. Which is good...

141. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89624 by Spinoza on November 21, 2007 at 9:24 am

That episode of South Park seems pretty salient right about now... :(

142. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89481 by Spinoza on November 20, 2007 at 11:18 pm

When I was in Holland last summer, I mentioned Ayaan to some people just to see what the Dutch think of her, and they were ANGRY. In general she is not well liked by anyone there (seemingly regardless of religion). The reason they gave me was that the Dutch government should not have been using tax-payer money to protect her, especially since she was no longer a member of the government there, nor residing in Holland.

They also did not like that she was so outspoken.

Several Muslim friends of mine who call themselves liberal, or libertarian even, have expressed disdain for her, because they think she has oversimplified the problems faced by women in African-Arab countries... Specifically, they claim that female genital mutilation is not in the Quran, nor in the Hadith, but is, rather, an Arabism that came with the Muslim Arabs to Africa. They don't like it either, but they themselves do not consider it Islam's problem. I have told them that this is to confuse the problem. Of course it doesn't SAY anything about it in the holy books of Islam, but it is the problem of MUSLIMS because Muslims, regardless of why, are the ones doing it.

This seemed to make headway... but at the same time, they were not convinced that fighting religion was the way to get abuse of women to stop (obviously, because they are religious).

In any case... it was certainly interesting to note the opinion of the Dutch towards Ayaan.

To me she seems very nice, obviously intelligent, and passionate... But like Peter Singer's appeals for us to give 25% of our money away to charity... I just personally don't think it's a good way of going about things.

I hope Ayaan stays safe, but I would much rather that the American government offer her protection gratis, or that some wealthy patron or two take on her cause.

As a student, I cannot even afford $10.

Sorry Ayaan.

143. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88696 by Spinoza on November 18, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Am I the only one who finds it odd that there are options for $20,000 one-time, or $1000 monthly donations to that trust?

Maybe Ayaan would be more comfortable (and cheaper to protect) up here in Canada?

144. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #88075 by Spinoza on November 14, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Indeed. Dennett is one of my favourite philosophers... He and I agree on a great many things (see: Self as a Centre of Gravity, his anti-qualia stance, his eliminative materialism)...

But his work really has nothing at all to do with the disagreement PeterK and I were having.

My point was SOLELY that his argument purposely sets up a straw-man... I'm sorry, but theism isn't THAT stupid, it may be WRONG in the end, but the arguments are often difficult to refute, and setting up straw-men is the wrong way to go about vindicating atheism.

I will reiterate, theists distinguish all CREATED objects from God... No theist means, when they say "God created the Universe" that God created ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.

What they mean is, quite obviously, God created everything BUT HIMSELF.

He is the PRIMA CAUSA, according to tradition.

This is not ONLY, as someone has suggested, merely deism. This is Theism.

Deists certainly do have a conception of God as prima causa, but they have certain distinguishing features which abrogate them from Theism.

It is a weak, foolish, silly attempt at a refutation to say that the God of theists can't exist because of a claim that they don't make...

The way to go about refuting God-claims is to find direct contradictions in their STRONGEST formulations... You cannot JUST use empirical data... that won't work...

Yes, empirical data can stand as a premise in your refutation, but you cannot say "Consciousness requires an animal brain, therefore God isn't conscious, therefore God doesn't exist."

That's silly... What theists mean by "consciousness" is NOT the limited subjective perspective brains give us...

In fact, a careful theist won't even say that God is CONSCIOUS... the argument is more nuanced than that.

There is nothing illogical about a possible being that KNOWS everything (omniscience).

That is to say, as an atheist, it probably is NOMOLOGICALLY impossible (that is, scientifically)...

But from a mathematical/logical perspective, it's EASY to conceive of such a being.

You just take the infinite set of facts, and take it that for each fact, x knows it simply in virtue of its being a fact...

In fact, Dennett's position on mind-states actually makes it EASIER to understand this.

Dennett thinks that your thermostat has mind states. Specifically, it "knows" when to turn on and off.

This is primitive, certainly... but if you imagine God as referring to a sort of INFINITE thermostat, whose mind states just happen to be supervenient on every fact... then you've got an omniscient being.

... And yes, I am playing devil's advocate here... as a philosopher, I have to admit that the above is logically valid... I don't, in actual fact, believe that such a being EXISTS (this is the nomological or scientific bit), but there is nothing in this picture which is A PRIORI logically impossible or contradictory.

HOWEVER, a posteriori, there are a great many problems with this conception... and THAT is where one can "disprove" very specific conceptions of God.

The problem of evil is still the best way. By far.

As soon as you bring up the strongest version of the problem of evil, what you've actually done, logically speaking, is reduce the POSSIBLE nature of God from the THREE Omnis (Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnibenevolence) to only one (it could be any of the three...) and as soon as you've done that, all you have to do is say "But what kind of God is that?!" ... and the answer is "Not a very good one..." In fact, via Ockham's Razor, a God which has only one of those three traits is in effect entirely superfluous.

So... yeah... that's my ... story. LOL

145. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87879 by Spinoza on November 13, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Baeoz, ahem, yes, thank for the correction... what I should have said was that an idiot is a person lacking INTELLIGENCE, not knowledge. In my haste I conflated idiot with ignorant. That is a subtle distinction though.. and it could be argued that all idiots are ignorant, whereas not all ignoramuses are idiots.

The reason I originally described certain atheists as idiots (rather than as ignorant) is that they really do seem to be lacking intelligence... they think the things they are saying are these brilliant logical points (they sound like Beavis and Butthead "Heh heh heh, hey Beavis, if like, um, God, created, like um, everything, then um, like, doesn't that mean that God can't exist?, 'cause, um, like, that would mean not everything was created, heh heh...").

It's idiotic... and it annoys me about as much as religious idiocy.

146. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87845 by Spinoza on November 13, 2007 at 10:37 am

Several things:

1. I am not only tired of idiot atheists, I am, in this thread, tired of trying to explain basic errors in logic and thinking to them.

2. My capitalization of certain words has been mistaken for being "pissed off" and "childish". However, this is far from the case. My capitalization was a quick way of emphasizing the fact that the sentences were conditionals.

It is quite devious and childish to take this and run with it, declaring me as having "lost the argument", without actually EVER (<- emphasis) dealing with the criticisms I put forward (which STILL [<- emphasis] haven't been understood).

3. Voltaire's brilliant Candide, one of my favourite books of all time, is a DIRECT (<- emphasis) response to Leibniz's notion of "Best Possible World".

4. A claim like the following, from an atheist:

"He CAN'T exist under these conditions. This is the wall. It stops here. This is the end."

When presented with a counterfactual claim (a "what if?", or conditional), is NOT an answer, it is a diversion.

You cannot assert the above quoted phrase as a solution to a counterfactual claim because the whole POINT of the counterfactual is to take it for granted that IF there were X, then Y is how things would be (as in "IF there were a God, THEN IF God were a conscious entity THEN IF consciousness requires an object THEN prior to creation, God could at least be conscious of himself).

There is NOTHING illogical about this, it's a perfectly logical argument based on the counterfactual "IF God exists".

You cannot disprove a counterfactual by denying the assumption.

That's called the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

It is a fallacy because the conditional is not TWO-WAY.

With one-way conditionals (IF X, THEN Y), if you deny X to get the denial of Y, you are arguing fallaciously because it doesn't follow from the denial of X that Y is not the case.

For example consider the following:

If it is raining, then the ground is wet.
It is not raining.
Therefore the ground is not wet.

But it just so happens that the ground IS wet, because someone was draining their swimming pool.

That is why it is a fallacy.

And that is the error being made by atheists like PeterK, and is why if you want to argue AGAINST theism (notice, I did not say argue FOR atheism), you should probably learn some informal logic.

... now I think that suffices to show that, far from "losing the argument"... I have been right all along.


... keeping in mind that I am an atheist.

Oh, and in PeterK's last post, you'll notice that while claiming victory, he decided to start dropping insults that have nothing to do with anything.

... my claim of "idiot atheists" is just a factual claim, yes, it has negative connotations, but that's because being an idiot (lacking knowledge) IS a bad thing.

But it is relevant, unlike ... being a dork?

Let's make this as clear as possible. PeterK thinks he is clever for saying this:

If the term "all that exists" is included in the initial argument, that means ALL that exists. Easy to do. That includes any degree or idea of what existence is, even though you may not know what it is. You don't have to. Now say this to a theist and yes, they will more than likely make references to how tasty the taco dip is.

And I have, several times now, explained that this is by and large, a STRAW MAN. It is a straw man, because no theist says that. He is defining the theist argument as weaker than it is. This is the very definition of straw man.

Now, I'm an atheist, and I think the theist's arguments are wrong... but in this particular case, there isn't actually anything wrong with the ACTUAL argument...

The theist says "God is an eternally existent being.", if they then say "God created everything in the universe." You are straw-manning them if you take "everything" in this context to mean "absolutely everything". There is this thing called the Principle of Charity, which says that when you interpret your interlocutor's argument, you use the strongest possible interpretation of their words, and when you set about to knock their argument down, THAT is what you knock down, the STRONGEST form, not the weakest.

In the STRONGEST formulation, the theistic argument does NOT make the obviously contradictory (even to theists) claim that "God created ALL, and therefore God can't exist because God would be something, but if God created ALL then he couldn't have been around to create anything." That's just a dumb way of understanding the argument. And a fallacious way of getting rid of the theist argument to boot.

147. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87685 by Spinoza on November 12, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Spinoza--
Who is the confused one here? If there WERE a God?..There can't BE a God--if his existence precedes all that exists, and theists do postulate God created all. I've never heard of a theist positing the idea that there was all this stuff laying around and God rearranged it into something he wanted to--no HE created existence. My argument is simply that to be conscious, there must first exist something to be conscious OF. But God cannot exist as a conscious entity, let alone be consciousof himself if there ain't nothin else around.
There is no strawman here. There is no confusion here. The beauty in the simplicicity of this argument is what seems to throw the detractors into a tither

You ARE confused. You fail to understand the idea of a conditional.

Even after I have corrected your idiotic straw-man, you come out with this:

"if his existence precedes all that exists, and theists do postulate God created all. I've never heard of a theist positing the idea that there was all this stuff laying around and God rearranged it into something he wanted to--no HE created existence."

But again, you're confusing what the theists say.

No theist is going to say what you want them to say which is that "God precedes all that exists. But God exists."

That is CLEARLY, even to theists, contradictory, and you are a fool if you think that they think this is a worthy argument against them. (and it isn't one... any HONEST atheist can see what I have pointed out).

They will just say "No, God precedes HIS CREATION."

Simple as that. You royally straw-manned the theist argument.

Secondly, you say this: "But God cannot exist as a conscious entity, let alone be consciousof himself if there ain't nothin else around."

I already answered this. It's called a CONDITIONAL.

You are constructing one here. You are saying:

(~S -> ~C) (if there's no stuff then there's no consciousness).

But you just made this up out of thin air. It's OBVIOUSLY true... but no one thinks that there can be consciousness without SOMETHING (God IS, after all, a kind of something, at the very least, a concept). Least of all theists.

Theists think that God is eternal, and is a thing.
Therefore, for theists, there is SOMETHING prior to creation (by which they mean the creation of EVERYTHING BUT GOD, you idiot, which YES, is problematic, but not for your stupid reason).

Now comes the conditionals for theism:

IF there is a God, then IF God is conscious AND there is nothing in existence EXCEPT God, then GOD can still be CONSCIOUS OF HIMSELF (that is, intrinsically self-reflective).

And indeed, THAT IS HOW THEISTS TALK.

For an intellectually rigorous (but ultimately unsatisfactory) discussion of this, check out Leibniz's Theodicy, where he discusses HIS solution to the Problem of Evil, which is that prior to Creation, God, because he's all-knowing and all-Good, picked the BEST of all possible worlds (the most harmonious), and created that one.

This IMPLIES consciousness of POSSIBLES prior to the creation of the actual.

This may confuse an intellectual peon such as yourself, and it happens to bother me quite a bit too (for other reasons), but it IS logically possible.

Your argument does NOTHING for the atheist cause... it just makes us look collectively retarded.

That is all.

148. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87661 by Spinoza on November 12, 2007 at 6:18 pm

And Bonzai, I think you have several fundamental misunderstandings of philosophy... not that I'm going to change your mind (it probably just isn't for you), but you're either merely unaware of what philosophers do (because you have only taken an intro course (or courses)?) or you have been misled.

One need only look to Russell, Wittgenstein, Frege, Carnap, Kripke, Turing, Harman, Ryle... and hundreds of others, many still living... to see what philosophers have done for 20th and 21st century "wisdom".

149. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87660 by Spinoza on November 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm

PeterK, I'm sorry, but you're confused.

there is nothing to to conscious OF if existence has not yet been created. When I refer to 'existence'-- I include all that exists..everything..describing various degrees and levels and definitions of existence don't getcha off the hook.

No theist means that. You have constructed a terrible straw-man for their position.

This is why I said I am tired of idiotic atheists, they think they're smarter than they are...

You can't tell theists what they believe (changing it in the process) and then disprove THAT.

Theists believe God is an eternally existing BEING, hence, has existence (excluding obscurantist interpretations), and intelligence, and causal power. Etc.

You have only shown how stupid atheism can make itself look if it is naive.

I specifically stipulated that if there WERE a God, that God could conduct an internal dialogue with itself...

You can't weasel out of that argument by saying that if there were a God it would have nothing to be conscious of... that's a different scenario than the one you asked us to consider.

150. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87555 by Spinoza on November 12, 2007 at 12:52 pm

As the famous saying goes, Bonzai:

"One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens."

I didn't, however, mention formal logic, specifically because modern, post-Fregean logic is a very specialized tool for academic philosophers and mathematicians to do analysis of the structure of argumentation.

It is INCREDIBLY useful in that context, but means next to nothing to the man in the street.

HOWEVER, INFORMAL LOGIC, the study of fallacy and rhetoric, and of critical thinking (CT) is invaluable to ANYONE. Period.

It certainly behooves a man to learn to recognize quickly the side-stepping and rhetorical fallaciousness of political and theological spin.

And YES, the man in the street can LEARN by himself to recognize this in a more raw, un-specified form, but he himself may be prone to the fallacies himself, lest he learn as many of them as he can.

Self-deception is a wonderful attribute we humans have garnered from our evolutionary voyage.

Oh, and just as an example, I can tell you EXACTLY why Paley's argument for design fails:

Paley argues along the following lines:

We KNOW any watch we find had a designer because it functions teleologically, we can "SEE" its purpose and the intricacy of its design and functions.

Likewise (argues Paley), we can KNOW that any living creature we find had a designer because it TOO (seems to) function teleologically, since living things are roughly analogous to automatons like watches (or computers and robots to take a modern example), except INFINITELY more complicated, and therefore the designer must have been INFINITELY more intelligent than we humans (!).

This is UTTERLY convincing for loads of people... they think "it just MAKES SENSE." But that's what fallacies DO!!! They are so-called BECAUSE they are convincing bits of rhetoric that needed to be described and categories IN ORDER that we more easily recognize them.

The fallacy involved in Paley's horrible argument is slightly convoluted, but is ESSENTIALLY a fallacy of composition that says "If X is designed and Y appears to be just like X in a relevant way, then Y is designed too."

The error is a jump in logic from the knowledge of a designer of watches to the knowledge of a designer of ANYTHING ELSE.

It also does this kind of jump from "human intelligence designs small trinkets" to "big trinket requires much greater than human intelligence."

And informal logic will give you a means to once-and-for-all PROVE that this is fallacious.

Oh, and Zaphod, I enjoy it too. I want my atheist brethren to have access to the justification I have for the position.