Some Sobran questions for atheists
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1675
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm
Some Sobran questions for atheists
short, easy reading column
"And did they, even after they had died (and risen again, it goes without saying), make converts who would die for what they had taught? Did any of them ever give a speech like the Sermon on the Mount? If so, where can I find a copy?"
http://www.fgfbooks.com/Sobran-Joe/2016 ... 60323.html
"And did they, even after they had died (and risen again, it goes without saying), make converts who would die for what they had taught? Did any of them ever give a speech like the Sermon on the Mount? If so, where can I find a copy?"
http://www.fgfbooks.com/Sobran-Joe/2016 ... 60323.html
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
You know, I started responding to that article but then realized that maybe you were just posting it as a caricature of Christian apologetics?
That article is astonishingly bad and the author seems profoundly uneducated. There exist far more erudite and well-reasoned defenses of Christianity (... which are still wrong, but at least they're somewhat respectable).
That article is astonishingly bad and the author seems profoundly uneducated. There exist far more erudite and well-reasoned defenses of Christianity (... which are still wrong, but at least they're somewhat respectable).
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4964
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Don't take this wrong guys, but your comments are even more general than those presented the article - which in my opinion was heavy on satire but you would have to probably be a Christian to get it fully. It would be helpful in understanding your beliefs, if you could specifically refute the points in the article rather than just load on the general poo-poo. You are sounding like MSNBC re. the Repubs or Fox re. the Dems.MangoMan wrote:+1Gabe wrote: You know, I started responding to that article but then realized that maybe you were just posting it as a caricature of Christian apologetics?
That article is astonishingly bad and the author seems profoundly uneducated. There exist far more erudite and well-reasoned defenses of Christianity (... which are still wrong, but at least they're somewhat respectable).
A bunch of ridiculous arguments with so many fallacies they are too numerous to list. OMG. [That G is for goodness, not God.]
A blessed Holy Week to all.
... M
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
It took about 30 seconds for me to see the fallacy that makes the rest of the article worthless.
Namely, that he is assuming that all the claims about Jesus made by Christianity are true.
Of course, if they were true, then Christianity would be... well, true.
However, that is an elementary fallacy called "begging the question", in which the claims made are considered true, and therefore any argument with them is incorrect.
Hope that helps... but I doubt it will, unfortunately.
Namely, that he is assuming that all the claims about Jesus made by Christianity are true.
Of course, if they were true, then Christianity would be... well, true.
However, that is an elementary fallacy called "begging the question", in which the claims made are considered true, and therefore any argument with them is incorrect.
Hope that helps... but I doubt it will, unfortunately.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Man, I love it when someone uses begging the question correctly!Libertarian666 wrote: However, that is an elementary fallacy called "begging the question", in which the claims made are considered true, and therefore any argument with them is incorrect.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1675
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Where do you find this assumption?Libertarian666 wrote:
Namely, that he is assuming that all the claims about Jesus made by Christianity are true.
Even so, how does said assumption address the central point of the column, which is to dismantle the claim that all religions are the same...a claim which is not dependent upon the teachings of Christianity being true or false?
Last edited by murphy_p_t on Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
No you're right, I'm completely aware I just made a blanket assertion without substantiating it at all... just didn't seem like it was worth taking the time to pick it apart. So it was intended as satire you think? (btw, I was a Christian once upon a time, which perhaps isn't the same as being one now, but I am fairly well-educated when it comes to the bible and Christian doctrine)Mountaineer wrote: Don't take this wrong guys, but your comments are even more general than those presented the article - which in my opinion was heavy on satire but you would have to probably be a Christian to get it fully. It would be helpful in understanding your beliefs, if you could specifically refute the points in the article rather than just load on the general poo-poo. You are sounding like MSNBC re. the Repubs or Fox re. the Dems.
A blessed Holy Week to all.
... M
There were a number of tangential arguments sprinkled throughout that were atrociously fallacious. From the writing, it wasn't even clear to me that there was a central point. But if we take what you've said as the central point, even if we grant that the author succeeded in dismantling that claim, why is that significant? Is this some kind of strawman? I guess I can't speak on behalf of all atheists, but I certainly don't think that all religions are the same. There are profound differences. My go-to heuristic for understanding a religion is to start by examining its origins through the lens of Nietzsche's dichotomy of master and slave moralities.murphy_p_t wrote:Where do you find this assumption?Libertarian666 wrote:
Namely, that he is assuming that all the claims about Jesus made by Christianity are true.
Even so, how does said assumption address the central point of the column, which is to dismantle the claim that all religions are the same...a claim which is not dependent upon the teachings of Christianity being true or false?
Onto the article:
No, of course not. The ancient Greeks espoused a prototypical master morality, while Christianity is the prototypical slave morality.Did the ancient Greeks ask Zeus to “forgive us as we forgive others”?
Uh, yeah. Probably a lot more impressive actually. Has this guy even read texts from other traditions? Curing blind men or turning water into wine seems like child's play compared to Shiva DESTROYING THE UNIVERSE or Atlas HOLDING UP THE SKY. But Libertarian666's point stands: even if the stories of Jesus had him performing the most impressive miracles in all the land, who cares? I can write some shit down right now about my buddy's magic powers, stick it in a mason jar, and bury it. When they dig it up centuries later and a secularly commissioned committee of guys in funny hats cherry picks the bits they like, does the fact that I wrote it down and convinced a lot of people to believe it (and subsequently blow themselves up to honor the memory of my buddy) make it true?And many other religious figures, we are told, have performed miracles every bit as impressive as those attributed to Jesus. Really?
Seriously, what the fuck? There's no logical connection between the first and second sentences.Religions are a lot alike, they can’t all be true, so isn’t it probable that they are all false? By that kind of reasoning, you can prove not only that we don’t know who wrote Hamlet, but that it was never written at all.
Again, totally irrelevant. But let's pick a fun example, from Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law: "Be strong, o man! lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee for this. [...] Fear not at all; fear neither men nor Fates, nor gods, nor anything. Money fear not, nor laughter of the folk folly, nor any other power in heaven or upon the earth or under the earth. Nu is your refuge as Hadit your light; and I am the strength, force, vigour, of your arms."How many other religions command their votaries to rejoice, be of good cheer, have no fear?
Could someone please explain what it means for the prayers of other religions to 'surpass' Christian prayers?Come to think of it, the atheists could strengthen their case somewhat by producing the prayers of other religions to show how much they resemble, or even surpass, Christian prayers. Why don’t they? Just asking. But I have my suspicions.
This is only one of many contradictions in Christian metaphysics. He, like many other Christians, just labels it "The Problem of Evil" and deems it a profound mystery to be contemplated. So I guess that solves the problem?How can God be both good and omnipotent, when there is so much evil in the world?
To wit: how can I both love my (hypothetical future) wife and beat her constantly? I'm sure if I explain to the judge that this is "The Problem of Domestic Violence" and it collectively escapes our capacity as imperfect humans to understand, everyone will have their mind blown and I'll be released so I can contemplate this mystery further.
Godwin's law at work. Ok, so Hitler was a fan of eugenics (which actually we were doing in the US way before Hitler even knew who he was mad at) which isn't Darwinism per se, but rather a dubious normative extension thereof to the problem of social engineering. But is there any reputable source that suggests Stalin "believed in Darwinism"? This is my first legitimate question, seeing as I'm not an expert on Soviet history. But the entire purported ideological underpinning of Soviet Russia, communism, is about as antithetical to this interpretation of Darwinism as it gets.If Hitler and Stalin believed in Darwinism, that doesn’t count against Darwinism, because they “abused” it.
And anyway, if we're going to invoke historical atrocities, we all know that religious groups have an equally (if not more) colorful record.
I take issue with Dawkins on a number of points, but one of his quips seems appropriate to conclude with: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Last edited by Gabe on Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Mountaineer
- Executive Member
- Posts: 4964
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Those comments were helpful re. understanding where you are coming from. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Could you perhaps state "how do you know" the basis for your rebuttal is true, or at least more true than the basis for Christianity? Why do you choose to have faith in logic (for the big ideas, not the day to day practical stuff) versus all the other possibilities (e.g. other abstract thoughts, witchcraft, mystisism, internet authorities, dead philosophers, ancestor worship, etc.)?
... M
Could you perhaps state "how do you know" the basis for your rebuttal is true, or at least more true than the basis for Christianity? Why do you choose to have faith in logic (for the big ideas, not the day to day practical stuff) versus all the other possibilities (e.g. other abstract thoughts, witchcraft, mystisism, internet authorities, dead philosophers, ancestor worship, etc.)?
... M
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
There are of course similarities and differences between different religions.
And, between and among different versions of those religions, like Orthodox/Conservative/Reform Judaism.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
And, between and among different versions of those religions, like Orthodox/Conservative/Reform Judaism.
I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Really, what is the point of these arguments? Virtually all modern arguments for and against Christianity/atheism are horribly done and filled with factual and logical error. If one really wants to be good at arguing either side, a survey of philosophy starting around the beginning of the reformation into the late 1800s is a good start. Pretty much all the good stuff on either side was hashed through then. However, let me pretty much sum them up in a couple of sentences.
1. Observable vs. unobservable information/experience.
2. What is experience?
3. The relative weight placed on experiences of different types, the impact of, and the working of the mind toward them.
There is a huge dance between the three and if you are Christian #1 is very difficult to win. If you are atheist you will lose on #2 pretty much every time. And if you are on either side you will endlessly argue about #3.
1. Observable vs. unobservable information/experience.
2. What is experience?
3. The relative weight placed on experiences of different types, the impact of, and the working of the mind toward them.
There is a huge dance between the three and if you are Christian #1 is very difficult to win. If you are atheist you will lose on #2 pretty much every time. And if you are on either side you will endlessly argue about #3.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1675
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
In the column presented, the uniqueness of Christianity is illustrated primarily by the impact that Jesus had upon those who followed his path. Sobran asks his reader where are these behaviors, imparted by a founder, in other religions. Such as “forgive us as we forgive others”. Perhaps brings greater social harmony than "an eye for an eye".Gabe wrote:
There were a number of tangential arguments sprinkled throughout that were atrociously fallacious. From the writing, it wasn't even clear to me that there was a central point. But if we take what you've said as the central point, even if we grant that the author succeeded in dismantling that claim, why is that significant? Is this some kind of strawman?murphy_p_t wrote:Where do you find this assumption?Libertarian666 wrote:
Namely, that he is assuming that all the claims about Jesus made by Christianity are true.
Even so, how does said assumption address the central point of the column, which is to dismantle the claim that all religions are the same...a claim which is not dependent upon the teachings of Christianity being true or false?
Sobran also asks what other religious figure claimed the power to forgive sins, as his own? Perhaps a unique claim among the widely practiced faiths of today.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1675
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Do you expect to have millions, or even a few dozen, following the precepts you establish during your life, when your time capsule is dug up?Gabe wrote:
Onto the article:
No, of course not. The ancient Greeks espoused a prototypical master morality, while Christianity is the prototypical slave morality.Did the ancient Greeks ask Zeus to “forgive us as we forgive others”?
Uh, yeah. Probably a lot more impressive actually. Has this guy even read texts from other traditions? Curing blind men or turning water into wine seems like child's play compared to Shiva DESTROYING THE UNIVERSE or Atlas HOLDING UP THE SKY. But Libertarian666's point stands: even if the stories of Jesus had him performing the most impressive miracles in all the land, who cares? I can write some shit down right now about my buddy's magic powers, stick it in a mason jar, and bury it. When they dig it up centuries later and a secularly commissioned committee of guys in funny hats cherry picks the bits they like, does the fact that I wrote it down and convinced a lot of people to believe it (and subsequently blow themselves up to honor the memory of my buddy) make it true?And many other religious figures, we are told, have performed miracles every bit as impressive as those attributed to Jesus. Really?
Also, what became of the followers of the Atlas fables? Seems the earth is still "held up", yet his followers are not making sacrifices today. In fact, aren't most Greeks today Christian?
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1675
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
In the context of looking for the atheist version of the Sermon on the Mount and the precept of “Whoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone”...a prayer asking for forgiveness "as we forgive those who trespass against us."Gabe wrote:Could someone please explain what it means for the prayers of other religions to 'surpass' Christian prayers?Come to think of it, the atheists could strengthen their case somewhat by producing the prayers of other religions to show how much they resemble, or even surpass, Christian prayers. Why don’t they? Just asking. But I have my suspicions.
Where is the atheist prayer/precept which would bring greater social harmony? If it existed, some would argue that it surpasses the Christian.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Sin is a uniquely Christian concept. Christianity introduces both the problem and the solution. If you don't introduce the problem in the first place, there's no need to solve it.murphy_p_t wrote: Sobran also asks what other religious figure claimed the power to forgive sins, as his own? Perhaps a unique claim among the widely practiced faiths of today.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1675
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
When it comes to relations with other people, libertarians might give the concept of sin another nomenclature, such as violating the NAP.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
No, because unless I had a time machine to return to a time of vastly greater superstition and ignorance where I could proselytize to bronze age shepherds, I'd have a hell of a time persuading enough people to get it to go viral. Thanks to the proliferation of the scientific method and easy access to information, our collective memetic immune system (at least amongst intellectuals) is marginally more robust. Though I suppose it wouldn't be impossible considering L. Ron Hubbard's incredible success promoting Scientology in recent history.murphy_p_t wrote: Do you expect to have millions, or even a few dozen, following the precepts you establish during your life, when your time capsule is dug up?
If Christianity were invented today, i.e. it didn't have the staggering weight of culture and history behind it, it wouldn't proliferate nearly as effectively. Very few modern people, tabula rasa, would pick up a copy of the Bible and exclaim "Wow! This is a really plausible account of how the universe works!"
You know, I was just wondering last week how to deal with my neighbor's goat that fell into my pit, as well as the axehead that accidentally flew off and impaled my friend when we were out chopping wood... thank God one of his prophets saw fit to explain the proper procedures in Dueteronomy.
Fine, let's stick to Hinduism then. It predates Christianity by a substantial margin and has a billion followers.murphy_p_t wrote: Also, what became of the followers of the Atlas fables? Seems the earth is still "held up", yet his followers are not making sacrifices today. In fact, aren't most Greeks today Christian?
Last edited by Gabe on Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Meh, I've done this dance before. Neither of us is going to convince the other. I'm bowing out.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 1675
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:44 pm
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
I just started reading a book called "The Illusion of God's Presence, The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing". If the author proves his case maybe this won't be such a losing argument for the atheist after all.Kbg wrote: 2. What is experience?
If you are atheist you will lose on #2 pretty much every time.
- dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: synagogue of Satan
- Contact:
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
It's very hard to prove a negative. As Karl Popper said, you cannot disprove God's existence.
Anyway, I love Greg and once I found out he was a Christian, I lost the desire to disprove.
Anyway, I love Greg and once I found out he was a Christian, I lost the desire to disprove.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Yeah, I'm not particularly militant. A few of the people I respect the most are deeply religious.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
So let's go here. Science today has a reasonably good grasp of the biological workings of the brain. It also has a good grasp of the bio-electrical mechanisms that collect the data that is transmitted to the brain all of which forms our perception of reality. All well and good, but assume someone actually saw God, how does any science refute that? And if it did happen, well we know biologically how it was registered in the brain. So regardless of how tight the science is within the book you are reading which may do an awesome job of explaining how some one thought they experienced God and probably really did not, it still runs into one of the three problems. The author is also asserting a premise that God doesn't exist.curlew wrote:I just started reading a book called "The Illusion of God's Presence, The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing". If the author proves his case maybe this won't be such a losing argument for the atheist after all.Kbg wrote: 2. What is experience?
If you are atheist you will lose on #2 pretty much every time.
Of course other philosophers got into what God is if he/she/it exists. This is super fun stuff because it ticks everyone off who has strong pro and anti-God views. Intellectually it's a more honest line of inquiry though and doesn't presuppose anything.
Full disclosure, I'm a practicing Christian. However, I'm reasonably well read and don't assume I have a lock on the truth. It's pretty arrogant I think on both sides to assert they do. I'm a fan of Matt 22: 35-40.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
The title of this book was very interesting to me because I was once a Christian and I often "felt" the presence of God. Now that I'm no longer a believer I've been left wondering what that was all about. The author had similar experiences and so far he's doing a good job of explaining it. He doesn't believe in God but I would not say that he is asserting that God doesn't exist. He is just offering a natural explanation for why so many people are so firmly convinced that he does.Kbg wrote:So let's go here. Science today has a reasonably good grasp of the biological workings of the brain. It also has a good grasp of the bio-electrical mechanisms that collect the data that is transmitted to the brain all of which forms our perception of reality. All well and good, but assume someone actually saw God, how does any science refute that? And if it did happen, well we know biologically how it was registered in the brain. So regardless of how tight the science is within the book you are reading which may do an awesome job of explaining how some one thought they experienced God and probably really did not, it still runs into one of the three problems. The author is also asserting a premise that God doesn't exist.curlew wrote:I just started reading a book called "The Illusion of God's Presence, The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing". If the author proves his case maybe this won't be such a losing argument for the atheist after all.Kbg wrote: 2. What is experience?
If you are atheist you will lose on #2 pretty much every time.
Of course other philosophers got into what God is if he/she/it exists. This is super fun stuff because it ticks everyone off who has strong pro and anti-God views. Intellectually it's a more honest line of inquiry though and doesn't presuppose anything.
Full disclosure, I'm a practicing Christian. However, I'm reasonably well read and don't assume I have a lock on the truth. It's pretty arrogant I think on both sides to assert they do. I'm a fan of Matt 22: 35-40.
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
Aww I sure hope I'm the Greg you speak of, because it fills me with warm fuzzies. (And if not, I'll find fuzzies ideally somewhere)dualstow wrote: It's very hard to prove a negative. As Karl Popper said, you cannot disprove God's existence.
Anyway, I love Greg and once I found out he was a Christian, I lost the desire to disprove.
Background: Mechanical Engineering, Robotics, Control Systems, CAD Modeling, Machining, Wearable Exoskeletons, Applied Physiology, Drawing (Pencil/Charcoal), Drums, Guitar/Bass, Piano, Flute
"you are not disabled by your disabilities but rather, abled by your abilities." -Oscar Pistorius
"you are not disabled by your disabilities but rather, abled by your abilities." -Oscar Pistorius
Re: Some Sobran questions for atheists
I certainly understand this and I'd get bothered if some other religious person i dont know very well (for instance a Muslim as an example) were to just jump in to assuming I want to talk to them about their religious views or anything with them for that matter. That's why I'm much bigger on relationships. When you get closer to others you can show them you genuinely care. Wouldn't you feel a little better about talking to someone about their beliefs if they are 1.) Being respectful of your current beliefs and viewpoints, 2.) Coming from a place of love/caringness from that person for you?MangoMan wrote:Yeah, me neither. Right up until the moment the deeply religious people start trying to convince you to embrace their beliefs.Gabe wrote: Yeah, I'm not particularly militant. A few of the people I respect the most are deeply religious.
Background: Mechanical Engineering, Robotics, Control Systems, CAD Modeling, Machining, Wearable Exoskeletons, Applied Physiology, Drawing (Pencil/Charcoal), Drums, Guitar/Bass, Piano, Flute
"you are not disabled by your disabilities but rather, abled by your abilities." -Oscar Pistorius
"you are not disabled by your disabilities but rather, abled by your abilities." -Oscar Pistorius