MorpheusSandman, you are delusional. You don't have the power to forgive any thing, or any one, not even yourself. May the Grace of God make you aware of this.
Printable View
MorpheusSandman, you are delusional. You don't have the power to forgive any thing, or any one, not even yourself. May the Grace of God make you aware of this.
There's a basic problem of attributing genre to the Bible in the first place. We can't reliably know what parts of it were written to be taken as fact, like a history, and what parts were meant to be more like parables that demonstrated a kind of moral or larger truth that wasn't based on any presumption of factual events (though there are certainly books that clearly lean towards certain generic categories). At least, by the time the New Testament was written the authors would have had some exposure to genres of biography and history from the Romans, but how much of the Old Testament can be described in terms of a largely Greco-Roman generic tradition.
Ok, let's assume the temples and palaces existed in the form stated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Given we know for sure that an extraordinary amount of the OT is pure bunkum - Noah, Moses, Exodus, Lot, Sodom, Jonah, ... it's quite reasonable to look at Kings as just as much myth as the other books. Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because from the iron chariots to Job to Jonah, all I see is contradictory flim-flam. Call it allegory by all means, but I can't accept any kind of claim for accuracy without substantial evidence. That does not - and I'm sure will never - exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
That fundies are a tiny percentage of christians? You should know better than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
As to the former, I don't care whether you believe it or not. I know what happened, as I was there at the time.
Also the notion of true, fact, are quite different. The use of imagination would not make something less truthful, the force of "take my word" was strong enough to give credibility, etc. Anyways, today, we can easily see people used imagination to enrich the narratives, it is not just adding a giant people in the promissed land, is about making it is also needed imagination to give it an interesting literary form. The Bible is not dry.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Rationalist atheists will always be a minority of all atheists, so you can only ever be disappointed if you think like that. You seem to be incorrectly conflating atheists with humanists.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The fact of "rejecting" god disturbs me as well. What is there to reject? I never rejected god in any way as I was never a believer, and the idea of rejection implies that there is something to reject, when there isn't.
When I realised that atheism simply means: a=without, theos=god.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The position you're in reminds me of Douglas Adams, who used to call himself a "radical atheist" to separate himself from other atheists who believe all sorts of crap.
I don't think Hitch qualifies in any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
From your Wikipedia link:
Public intellectual is a common term for an intellectual (a person who primarily uses intelligence in either a professional or an individual capacity) engaged in public rather than (or as well as) academic or other professional discourse.
Regardless of the field of expertise, as a public intellectual, one is addressing and responding to the problems of his or her society and thus such an individual is expected to "rise above the partial preoccupation of one’s own profession... and engage with the global issues of truth, judgement, and taste of the time.
I don't see Hitch in that at all. The whole argument here is that Hitch didn't act in an intellectual manner, and that on its own would mean that he wasn't an intellectual.
You can't have it both ways.
No I understood fine, I just disagree with you. Once he was appointed the Simonyi Chair, Dawkins was no longer a scientist, but a true public intellectual - that's what he was being paid for, so opening his mouth without doing the research was unforgivable, but he kept doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
We have almost no written records from many parts of earth's history, but we know lots about them because physical evidence exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I think you've raised a good point though - the bible does give a few clues, but we've been able to discern from evidence gained since that it was mostly mythical. It's a bit like early Wikipedia; right some of the time, wrong lots of the time, with the rest based on reality, but unreliable.
The person believing in an invisible man in the sky has no business calling anyone delusional. We as human beings forgive other human beings all the time, so I'm pretty sure we do have that power.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I know they're in the minority, but me holding atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I actually expect most of them (even those that write about it philosophically) to reach it. Hell, I know I still have a lot to work on when it comes to myself. What I'm talking about, though, is along the lines of this and this (I think Luke from the latter site gets it right in his tagline: "Atheism is just the beginning; now it's time to solve the harder questions.").Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I meant "rejecting the God hypothesis," the same way one would "reject Intelligent Design" or "flat-Earth theory."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Ok, but what does a definition have to do with standards? We may call Hitler inhuman because of his actions, but we don't mean that he literally wasn't from the species known as homo sapiens, we merely mean he did a lot of terrible things that are way below the standard that we hold other humans to. Similarly, I have no problem saying Mr. Idiot is an atheist if he doesn't believe in God but has a billion delusions the same as any theist does, but that doesn't mean I have to respect/care about his thoughts on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And I think he qualifies in every way. How was Hitch NOT "addressing and responding to the problems of his society... and (engaging) with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time?" When he's making a living writing and debating about how religion is evil, he's making a living out of addressing and responding to the problems of society and engaging in issues of truth and judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You actually can have it both ways because there are multiple meanings of the word. One can be in the role of a public intellectual, ie, publishing works/debating on intellectual issues like religion, philosophy, politics, etc. without being all that intellectually formidable. Hitchens was undeniably an "intellectual" in the former sense, and arguably not an intellectual in the latter sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Fair enough. I guess I still think of Dawkins as being primarily an evolutionary biologist whom only got into the "intellectual" life after being faced with so much ignorance by the religious concerning evolution. I think that if there wasn't so much opposition to evolution amongst the religious, Dawkins never would've taken on that role to begin with (I could be wrong, but that's my sense).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You're attacking an argument I'm not making. Given how much of Kings has been confirmed: personages, certain battles and events, certain building projects, and geographic locations, etc. it's reasonable to assume it has a historical core. However, much like any ancient history the writers and editors interspersed folktales, legends, and myths to the historical material. Elisha and the bears would be an example of a folktale in the Kings Narrative. As a literary object, Kings is a theological history. The reigns of the kings are seen through the eyes of theology and how their reigns turn out based on how well they follow the rules of G-d. So, of course, one needs to be careful not to take everything in the book as literal history, but it definitely can serve as a guidepost.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The rest of your reasoning is fallacious. Just because some parts are obviously mythical or imaginative doesn't mean all the parts are, especially given what we call the OT isn't one unified book, but a collection of different books by different authors.
Then you finish it up with a fallacy of irrelevance/non sequitur: "Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing." What does my thinking whether it's a "good thing" or not have to do with whether it really happened or not.
Poor reasoning followed by more poor reasoning.
Well, I think you're confusing the fundamentalist position of "it's all historically true! 100% accurate!" with my position, "large parts of the Bible are myths, folktales, poetry, and rules and regulations governing their society and fiction (by which I mean made-up stories), but certain books seem to be strongly historical with some folktales and myths grafted onto the material and can be useful as historical sources filtered through a critical eye and archaeology, and therefore we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, and anyone claiming the Bible is 100% fiction is equally full of nonsense and is holding an untenable position."Quote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because from the iron chariots to Job to Jonah, all I see is contradictory flim-flam. Call it allegory by all means, but I can't accept any kind of claim for accuracy without substantial evidence. That does not - and I'm sure will never - exist.
My doubt was about the latter, not the percentage of evangelicals if that wasn't clear.Quote:
That fundies are a tiny percentage of christians? You should know better than that.
As to the former, I don't care whether you believe it or not. I know what happened, as I was there at the time.
Well, Mark Twain did say, “Show may a man who don’t lie, and I’ll show you a man who ain’t got much to say.” However, I never said authors of fiction were liars. What I said was that if a critic says the author is writing a work of fiction, while the author SAYS he is writing a work of history, and never intentionally invents imaginary incidents in his book, then the critic is calling the author a liar. However, there are gray areas about the meaning of “fiction”.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Take my Mark Twain quotation as an example. I can’t remember where I first hear the anecdote, but I think it’s a fun quotation; it’s in character (it’s something Mark Twain might have said). I don’t know if Mark Twain said it or not – but I’m not inventing it; it is not a product of my imagination. I’m merely repeating what I’ve heard. If the quotation IS a work of fiction (if it was intentionally invented by some other author), it is at least neither a fiction ON MY PART, nor a lie ON MY PART. I reasonably believe it to be an anecdote that at least could be historically accurate – although, of course, I care less about the historical accuracy of the anecdote than about its merits as a witticism. Doubtless similar reasoning and motives play a role in shaping ancient histories and myths.
I agree. In addition, I’m not a biblical scholar. Probably nobody knows exactly what parts of the Bible were intended as history, poetry, fables, etc. However, those who have studied it know far more about it than I do (and probably far more about it than The Atheist does). WE know, for example that Greek and Roman historians often “quoted” speeches they could not have heard. Some ancient historians admitted they were “inventing” the speeches, but were trying to guess approximately what the speaker might have said. Herodotus is known by twin monikers: “The Father of History” and “The Father of Lies”.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Bingo! I’d also suggest that oral literature (of whatever genre) evolves organically. In other words, myths differ from fiction in that no SINGLE author invents them out of his imagination (note the word “single”, JCamilo). Instead, stories change over time as the story tellers embellish them to appeal to their audience or combine parts of different stories (often as a tactic to improve their storytelling). I read an analysis of The Iliad once where the author (I forget the reference) demonstrated that the story used many techniques essential to oral literature – many of the descriptive passages (“The wine-dark sea”) are pat, memorized passages that serve as a mnemonic aid to the storyteller. He can repeat them by rote, while he tries to remember where the story goes next. These pat sections differ from "fiction", however, because they are not "invented from the imagination" of the storyteller -- they are memorized as part of the storyteller's repertoire, and often repeated verbatim from earlier versions of the story. OF course story tellers also have to “invent”, because they can’t remember word for word and incident by incident exactly how they originally heard the story. So their stories RESEMBLE fiction in that they include some “invention”, even when the storyteller is attempting to repeat the story as exactly as possible. Therefore, the stories change over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Let's not take Mark Twain jests too serious. As you said: You never said authors of fiction were liars. So, why saying the bible can be called fiction would be the same as calling it a lie? Because fiction is not the same as lie. Does not matter if it is a oral tradition product or a modern authorship product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Bingo!. Let's quote myself: So, that is why it is fictional, someone had to invent a garden of eden allegory. It is hilarious, so it is historically incorrect (lets say) that Moses existed, then how there is a Moses history? Obviously if it is not what really happened, someone made it up. If Solomon was a king, but nowhere as rich as suggested, so how those details came to the register? God sent and Angel with the mission to make stories more funny?Quote:
Bingo! I’d also suggest that oral literature (of whatever genre) evolves organically. In other words, myths differ from fiction in that no SINGLE author invents them out of his imagination (note the word “single”, JCamilo). Instead, stories change over time as the story tellers embellish them to appeal to their audience or combine parts of different stories (often as a tactic to improve their storytelling).
Does not matter how much authors you have, what matters is those works are mixed and changed by the imagination of a human, therefore, fits as fiction. You do not have folktales without the creativity of a human, faerie tales, parables, fables, etc. And that it has (or not) historical roots is irrelevant. The piper of hamelin has historical roots.
You are telling me the "pat" was spontaneous generated by magic? All pats were once invented by a storyteller. They are left as mnemonic (although the improvisation could turn it in the fine-dark sea to help to keep the rythim, in case the storyteller forget it) cues, that people copy, but so are Shakespeare plays and they are of course once the product of someone imagination. Or just because all books are copied verbatim, this does not means the origal was not a product of imagination right? Orality does not change it, you cannot identify the authorship, but in orality still a momment of humam creation and all Iliad is certainly the product of one or more author's imagination.Quote:
I read an analysis of The Iliad once where the author (I forget the reference) demonstrated that the story used many techniques essential to oral literature – many of the descriptive passages (“The wine-dark sea”) are pat, memorized passages that serve as a mnemonic aid to the storyteller. He can repeat them by rote, while he tries to remember where the story goes next. These pat sections differ from "fiction", however, because they are not "invented from the imagination" of the storyteller -- they are memorized as part of the storyteller's repertoire, and often repeated verbatim from earlier versions of the story.
They do not resemble fiction. This is fiction. It is not fiction, the genre for book shops. It's fiction the production of human invention and creativity. The simple literary form of the bible is a production of human invention and creativity, even if they wanted it to be taken as a historical account (And I mean specific biblical books), just simple as put, they do not see the use of humam imagination as a form of lying. Our historical critery is not the same as their, if a guy exagerates the richness of Solomon, he would not think I am lying, he just think, I am making more interesting something that would be dull and nobody would listen and learn how it was.Quote:
OF course story tellers also have to “invent”, because they can’t remember word for word and incident by incident exactly how they originally heard the story. So their stories RESEMBLE fiction in that they include some “invention”, even when the storyteller is attempting to repeat the story as exactly as possible. Therefore, the stories change over time.
We're simply misunderstanding each other. That's not what I said. I've repeated myself five times, and you seem unable to understand. One more try: if you called a modern work of history a "piece of fiction", you would be insulting the author, claiming that he was a liar in claiming the work was a history, not a piece of fiction. Of course it might be true that some parts of the history had been invented by authors (centries ago) whom the modern author mistakenly believed to be reporting reliable facts instead of inventing them. It's a subtle distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
Descriptive passages in The Iliad ("the wine dark sea) may have been invented to enliven the story, or they may have been actual eye-witness descripitons of the sea originally repeated by Odysseus himself. Who knows? It doesn't really matter if we call such passages "fictional" or not. Of course the Bible is the result of "human invention and creativity". So is "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". If we were to call "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" a "work of fiction" we would be impugning Gibbon's claim that it was a work of history. No doubt some bits of the Decline and Fall that were reported by Gibbon as historical facts were actually invented by ancient authors whose reports Gibbon believed. However, in standard English I'd suggest that calling "Decline and Fall" "a work of fiction" would be misleading, inaccurate and insulting to Gibbon. No doubt the Bible is less accurate historically than Decline and Fall, and some of the stories in it can reasonably be called "fictional". Nonetheless the principle remains the same. If (whoever wrote written version of the book of Kings, based on the oral tradition) was attempting (like Gibbon) to write an accurate history, but was misled because earlier contributors to the stories had added "fictional" episodes, how is the author of "Kings" writing a "work of fiction" any more than Gibbon was?
Let's look at the Gospels. Nobody has a perfect memory. None of the stories Jesus is quoted as telling could possibly be exactly accurate, word for word (assuming no divine intervention, of course). Nonetheless, if we imagine that the parables were repeated by early Christians as accurately as possible, and that the authors of the Gospels TRIED to write (as closely as they could) exactly what they believed Jesus said, it would be misleading to call the Gospels "works of fiction". In standard English, calling them "works of fiction' would imply that Matthew, Mark, et. al. had "intentionally invented" episodes, rather than attempting historical accuracy. I make no claims about which version of how the Gospels were written is correct (i have no idea)-- simply that calling the Gospels "fiction" suggests that Matthew et. al. intentionally invented (parts of) them.
Without getting entangled with the motives of the writers, it is pure history. We can learn from it whatever we can. Who really cares whether they saw it as truth or fiction? It is plainly the history of truth and fiction in existential evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
A site which is now defunct, I might add.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
The trouble with your goal is that it's very much like Dawkins' awful, failed attempt to label rational atheists as "brights". All it does is court derision.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love it to succeed, but I see no chance of it ever happening. It makes me cringe when some dopey mullet selling crystals for healing claims to be an atheist, but we're stuck with them.
That makes a lot better reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Inhuman is not a simile for non-human, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Quite right, but why would you think anyone would automatically have respect for other atheists? I certainly don't - I'm more of an actions speak louder than words guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I suppose my line is drawn on whether the writer is appealing to emotion or reason. In Hitch's case, he was never appealing to reason, but to emotion. Based on the "addressing and responding to the problems of his society... and (engaging) with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time" qualifier, Jenny McArthy is a public intellectual.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
But if you break it down, there is very little opposition to evolution among the religious. It really is only a small group of US-based Southern Baptist/Pentecostal churches that think that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Given Dawkins' progression, I don't believe fundies had that much of an affect on him, because they are rare in England.
Yep, I did say I'd be happy to consider it a starting point. If I could be bothered, I think it would be interesting to know what the ratio of fact to fantasy is in the bible. My guess would be 10 reality to 90 fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Unfortunately, we know that every single book is chock-full of utter tripe. I gave one example from Kings that doesn't even work as an allegorical story, it's so hideous, and there are others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Note that I also didn't say it was all fantasy, just that all parts are questionable. It isn't a fallacy to not trust any information in a book that is known to be almost entirely false or mythological.
You know it didn't happen - I was giving you a chance to explain how it's even a good parable. Even 3000 years ago, I can't see how that made sense, unless you wanted your kids to have phobias about baldness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Luckily nobody's claimed it was 100% fantasy, and you're welcome to see it as a worthwhile historical source. You can call it Swiss cheese on chocolate cake for all I care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I'll just stick with the position that it's overwhelmingly incorrect and/or mythological, and utterly worthless in the 21st century, a position which appears to be held by every recognised university I can find, since no courses outside of theology use it as any form of reference whatsoever*. We had a discussion some time back, and there was exactly one literature university course using the bible - at a US military college.
*Some history courses may use it in passing, but I can't find it in a curriculum anywhere.
In terms of not throwing it out, you're way too late - it's already been thrown out from the non-religious world, and good riddance, as far as I'm concerned. The only suitable place for bibles are churches.
Proof it was written by men.Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
:D
No way. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
i wouldn't personally... by all accounts your welfare system is **** and all i can say about thalidomide people who are half deaf and totally blind is that they don't know how to fill forms in...as for christopher hitchens like most of us he was an intellectual donkey (i much prefer peter) and obviously his profs weren't impressed either...even i got better than a third...albeit not from the esteemed dreaming spires.
Except, you know, that is exactly what you claimed!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
“I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document. . . . I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical. . . . In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.
I realize saying something is 100% fiction is not exactly the same as calling something 100% fantasy, but this is why it is hard to take you seriously as an interlocutor. You constantly switch your terms and wiggle your way out of your own fallacies and even just make stuff up.
I already explained why you’re reasoning was fallacious (it was a fallacy of composition), so no need to reiterate the obvious. Unfortunately, you’re still stuck on repeat and haven’t added anything new to your argument that was already challenged. Yes, there are mythical elements attached to some of the historical elements, but huge portions of Kings have been historically vindicated. No one is claiming the Bible is 100% historically accurate or that every book is of equal historical value.Quote:
Unfortunately, we know that every single book is chock-full of utter tripe. I gave one example from Kings that doesn't even work as an allegorical story, it's so hideous, and there are others.
Note that I also didn't say it was all fantasy, just that all parts are questionable. It isn't a fallacy to not trust any information in a book that is known to be almost entirely false or mythological.
As usual you’re being dishonest and demonstrating your inability to deal with basic facts. I’m assuming you mean the Bible as literature debate. I was the one who responded to you in that thread and listed over 15 colleges that had featured the Bible in a literary course, two of them were Ivy Leagues, if I remember correctly. The academic world is teeming with courses that use the Bible, which are non-theological courses.Quote:
I'll just stick with the position that it's overwhelmingly incorrect and/or mythological, and utterly worthless in the 21st century, a position which appears to be held by every recognised university I can find, since no courses outside of theology use it as any form of reference whatsoever*. We had a discussion some time back, and there was exactly one literature university course using the bible - at a US military college.
It would be hard to argue with you about this and what you are saying to atheist. I, however look at all literature as historical, regardless of the author/s intentions or motives. Every thing else is speculative in that area. However, when the bible is taken as the word of God, no one can deny it, regardless of who wrote it. But who could deny that a my toe is the word of God in that regard? Saint Agustin, for example, is very funny in that respect. He said that Joseph had to be virgin because otherwise God would have never given him his mother for a spouse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
If you don't understand the difference between fiction - which uses historical points as a basis for a story, as explained by JCamilo - and fantasy, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, then I probably can't help you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.
The bits based on fact are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables attached to them.
Dishonesty? Basic facts? I said, and since you like quoting me, I'll do the same: "*Some history courses may use it in passing, but I can't find it in a curriculum anywhere."Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
You found 15 courses? Out of how many thousand courses? 10,000? 20,000? Admittedly I didn't look too hard, but on those numbers, I'll stick with the completely insignificant at this stage, thanks.
As I do recall, the original discussion was about English Literature degree-level courses, and it is factual that that the major non-religious universities around the world do not include the bible in their Eng Lit curriculum.
Maybe you'll believe a christian viewpoint on what's really happening with the bible in 2013:
So, not just academia has given up on the bible, so have everyday christians.Quote:
Sadly, the common assumption that Christians possess an in-depth knowledge of the Bible is wrong.
It seems to me in the context you used both the words, "fiction" and "fantasy" you meant: "a made-up event." If you had a specific definition in mind for each term it is your job to define them so as not to cause confusion (this is logic/argumentation 101 stuff). Since I'm fairly confident you used the words to mean the same thing and are just trying to wriggle out of your the intellectual hole of your own making this would also be a wonderful example of why I find you intellectually dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Repeating the same bad argument five hundred times won't make it true. The Bible is regarded as one of the greatest works of literature, this has already been demonstrated to you in a previous thread. So no need to rehash it here.Quote:
The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.
No, I stopped at 15 courses because I got tired and felt that was more than enough to rebut your "evidence" in the Bible as Lit thread. There are plenty of others, plus many universities don't post their course offerings or syllabus on the open web, but often have a private system accessible to students only (hence your 10,000 or 20,000 comment is based on flawed assumptions).Quote:
You found 15 courses? Out of how many thousand courses? 10,000? 20,000? Admittedly I didn't look too hard, but on those numbers, I'll stick with the completely insignificant at this stage, thanks.
Let's review exactly what happened in that other thread: you claimed that most major universities don't include the bible in their curriculum and you proved this by pointing to FOUR universities (not 15, not 10, not even 5, but just four) that didn't include it. Yet, here you are with your ONLY 15 nonsense. Like I said in the previous thread, two of the colleges I pointed to were Ivy Leagues and some of the others are known for their English departments, so clearly your statement "the major non-religious universities around the world do not include the bible in their Eng Lit curriculum" is false too. But what else is new?
At this point everything that needs to be said has been said. You've been shown to be demonstrably wrong on numerous assertions, haven't really provided much evidence to back-up your assertions, and have resorted to numerous fallacies in your discourse along the way. Not only with me, but pretty much with everyone else too! Last word is yours if you want it.
I will spend some time on this later, and rest assured, in the unlikely event I am wrong, I will admit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
Edit: In fact, having given it a minute's thought, I can't see the point in spending a second of my time doing it, so I'll accept your position that the bible is still relevant in universities. I was wrong.
god made you and so how could he be bad?
“The Atheist” is in fine form here. While it is true that the Atheist “probably can’t help” darkshadows, the remainder of the sentence is ridiculous. “Fantasy ” IS “fiction” (although not all fiction is fantasy). In addition, most fantasy bears a “resemblance to reality”, including, but not limited to: describing the adventures of human characters; when human characters are not included, the characters often resemble humans in that they speak some modern, human language; many of the characters can see, hear, and speak…..etc., etc., ad. infinitum.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The Atheist’s post is malarkey, EXCEPT THAT he “probably can’t help” darkshadows, or anybody else. On that single point, perhaps, we can find agreement.
One question, what are the “historical points” on which so many stories are based? The sharpened tips of halberds?
The atheist continues:Now The Atheist can read minds. Not only does he dismiss the Bible as third rate literature, but, through some uncanny psychic power, he is able to discern that the historical “bits are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables.” Perhaps he has channeled Moses, and thus learned his intent. Or maybe he has used his psychic powers to determine the purpose behind all that troublesome history in Kings. In any event, we should all exercise caution. Doubtless these same supernatural powers will enable The Atheist to determine the motives behind our posts, and we can be certain that he won’t be shy about revealing them (making them up?).Quote:
“ The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.
The bits based on fact are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables attached to them.”
Well, I'd dispute that myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
It does raise the old conundrum that a god must have created evil along with the good.
ah well you see I personally believe god does only create the goods, people, and evil is the breed that has gone sour ie the bad seed.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
one god does not make two bads ;)
meaning evil is the root cause of something else.
god is the root cause of good.
one has to dissociate bad with god for the simple reasons that there are causes obvious that breed evil and one must look into finding out what the causes are.
let's keep god out of it ie
god is a concept that is neither proven nor disproven and so to implicate a concept with something we do not like is simply passing the bucket and washing our hands of it. burying one's head in the sand or so to speak.
what is good is obvious it is simple and manageable there is no reason specific for good to exist it is simply is and does. it is natural to be good that is the norm. evil is abnormal or unusual let's say odd.
whereas evil comes from a something that has gone badly wrong and so one must look it for it and then get rid of it simple as that. god is nothing to do with logically speaking :)
also one must understand the meaning of evil it has many facets. evil/bad is a defect or an unoccurence that does not fit within the norms.
for example too much heat or too much cold can be described as bad.
too much swearing is bad.
too much rain/tsunamis/space exploration is bad.
bad transcends beyond a personne and therefore to implicate god which is a concept in that is simply ignoring the root causes of these misfortunes.
This is an odd kind of religion you follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
If something is causing the evil, is there another agent/cy at work?
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
lol well I do not have a religion. I do not believe in following any. but I do regulate my own thoughts by thinking things through and god is not immune of it since its concept is available for scrupules.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
indeed. the seven deadly sin is the indicator of what evil is about and why it is about. greed/ anger/jealousy are to name just few these are all a precipitator for bad to commit bad.Quote:
If something is causing the evil, is there another agent/cy at work?
space is an unknown territory and not be to fouled with in my opinion. space exploration is pure pollution, anything we do up will affect us down in earth. if we damage the up ie put pressure on it, then we lower the down. ie what goes up must come down. we are already seeing the results. tsunamis earth quakes and lack of water all these are signs that space is not well heat condensation and industrial damages is being trailed on its paths. not good.Quote:
Why?
I'm sorry, but what is this crap? Why should someone have to read what some guy wrote several millennia after the supposed events for it to be a valid critique? Is Bertrand Russell's critique of Christianity invalid also because he hadn't read Kierkegaard at the time? That makes no bloody sense, and nor does most of the rest of that pathetic article which constructs straw-man arguments left, right, and center, while clearly being ignorant of the actual premise of Hitchens's book. The guy acts like Hitchens claimed to be writing some philosophical treatise: he wasn't, the book was supposed to show the pernicious influence of religion, and to convey it in a way that could be understood by the masses (because this was obviously the audience he was intending to reach). Would his book have been more valid had he spent several hundred pages deconstructing the thought of Aquinas, Augustine and Jerome? Of course not: what those people thought all that time ago is irrelevant to the premise of the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Alas, some imbecile academics like the fool that wrote that article are incapable of understanding this. Why should a book be any more true because it is published by Oxford? The Oxford press will publish many books that openly contradict one another - they cannot all be correct! The guy clearly has an unerring faith in authority (which would explain why he hated Hitchens's book so much) and clearly so do you. You find an article online published by some mediocre academic, find it echoes your sentiments, and then post it with glee as if it is some kind of affirmation that your view is correct. Thus you viewed it with a completely uncritical eye and were somehow incapable of noticing that his argument is riddled with so many holes that you could write 10000 words deconstructing that piece of garbage.
Btw, just googled the guy who apparently wrote 'an admirably restrained review' of Hitchens's book, and he is a mormon for Christ's sake. And you'd take his opinion as fact? Jesus...
edit: and also: the bible is as much of a historical book as the Iliad.
I didn't read all of the Salon article but I did read God Is Not Great. Hitchens biggest criticism is not of God but of the way the Bible portrays Him and in the way people implement Him. Hitchens wanted to believe in the Biblical God but his education got in the way. He learned that men distorted the true nature of God in the Bible in order to control and manipulate other men. He wanted to believe that God loves us and made us superior to the animals, the plants and the minerals. But God doesn't. Atheists would rather think that there is no God than think that we are not first in God's heart. The question is not whether there is a God but: What is his true nature? After creating it all God stood back and watched and after a while He realized that the things that think ended up being the most vile, despicable and destructive of all his creations. God exists but He doesn't care for us any more than he cares for a pebble on a mountainside. In fact I think God derives a lot more pleasure and satisfaction from the pebble. Don't you? (You certainly do if the pebble is made of gold) So God is now pouring out His true love on a world somewhere across the universe inhabited by creatures that turned out to be truly noble of character and spirit. That place is still a paradise. God has abandoned us. He has left us to our own devices. He is allowing us to destroy ourselves and is doing it on his timetable, on geologic time not on human time. Slowly and painfully in this Sodom and Gomorrah where there is no Lot and no righteous creature to justify saving it. We don't realize it because we "see through a glass darkly" and want to think we are special. Like the William Holden character, Shears, in Bridge on the River Kwai, who said "sometimes I even think I'm Admiral Halsey." Sometimes we even think we are God.
....Sounds of laughter, shades of life
Are ringing through my opened ears
Inciting and inviting me.
Limitless undying love, which
Shines around me like a million suns,
It calls me on and on across the universe ....
Across The Universe
John Lennon
I think you'll find there have been tsunamis, earthquakes and water shortages long before there was space travel.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Very good post, and great spot that the guy's a Moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phocion
Congratulations! You just won the award for "Most Outrageously Nonsensical Sentence About Atheists".Quote:
Originally Posted by papillondemai
Well played.
Sentence? The entire paragraph is "outrageously nonsensical." A product of my imagination. But at least I tried to come up with an original idea so I could express my disgust with "humanity" instead of just regurgitating a bunch of pretentious "high falutin" slightly modified intellectual gibberish I read somewhere else. The objective reality is probably that "we live and we die." Period. And I say probably because I am not so arrogant as to think that I "know" because I read a bunch of obscure books at a rich kid snob school.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I have to say that I really enjoy Hitchens and his work. I just recently finished Mortality and I have to say that I found it to be very refreshing and honest, even in the face of impending death. He had a number of pithy, funny comments as well, typical Hitch style. I would agree with the Salon critic that Hitch picks and chooses his evidence. He is the kind of guy who would go on about religion and slavery, lord knows there are plenty examples of how it was used to justify the practice-Hamitic curse theory being one of the big "reasons." At the same time, Hitch wouldn't mention the likes of William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, or other religiously motivated abolitionists that religion was a huge part of. The Unitarian and Quaker movements have a lot of positive contributions to society and have been a source of goodness throughout the years, though the latter sectarian group did give us Richard Nixon. :lol:
A reply was posted in Salon that, i think, adequately takes to pieces the article posted at the start of this thread:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_...is_not_a_liar/
It really was a disgraceful piece of writing.
Thanks for posting the Salon response to White’s article. It’s more carefully constructed than most of the critiques of White posted here (not surprisingly, since it’s written for publication). In addition, Delora’s complaint that White has failed to “closely read” Hitchens’ book definitely applies to me – I remember reading it in a book store when it came out, over a 2 hour period. Nonetheless, Delora is guilty of many of the same intellectual sins of which he accuses White.
Delora reports that Hitchens’ position is: “In the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion.” However, if the above is true, wouldn’t it be equally correct to state: “…If you want to make wicked people do good things, you’ll need religion.”? Why the one, and not the other?
Besides, the claim that religion “functions” ONLY to make good people do evil things defies common sense. The moral precepts of Christianity include the golden rule, the Ten Commandments, the parables of Jesus, etc. How do these “function” to make good people do evil things, but not the reverse?
The “school” of anthropology that developed at Oxford in the mid 20th century (not long before Hitchens attended) is called “structural-functionalism”. Its developers included A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and E. Evans-Pritchard – perhaps the most famous Oxford anthropologists (identifiable as such by their hyphenated last names). Their notion was metaphorical – just as the organs of the body “function” to maintain the whole body, the institutions of society (political structures, religious structures, economic structures) “function” to maintain the whole society.
Structural –functionalism has fallen out of favor in anthropology. The evolutionary assumptions upon which it is based are dubious (as are similar biological evolutionary assumptions). We cannot assume that because an institution (or an organ) exists, it “functions” to preserve the society (or organism) as a whole. That is assuming the antecedent (if that’s the right name for the logical error). Nonetheless, it’s reasonable to think it LIKELY that religion serves a social function. Indeed, if religion serves ONLY negative functions (as Hitchens appears to suggest), it is likely that evolutionary forces would not have allowed it to be so persistent and pervasive in human societies. Clearly, if nothing else, religions create group solidarity among adherents – ritual behaviors (for example, calling fellow believers by kinship term such as “brother”) suggest that religion can help create a kin-like relationship among non-relatives.
Delora continues:
Very well. I respect free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas just like Hitchens does. But what is Delora getting at here? Respecting open mindedness hardly constitutes any kind of complete ethos. The open-minded can murder and steal and lack respect for their fathers and mothers, just like the close-minded can. The extent to which religion is valuable (to us atheists) is the extent to which it has helped form our own set of ethics, and the extent to which it has functioned to maintain and develop our society, and inform our culture. Clearly, inasmuch as ethics are culturally constituted, Christianity has informed and influenced the Western ethos. No doubt Christianity has also led (in part) to crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts. Immorality must involve something other than “contradict(ing) science or outrag(ing) reason”. “Open-mindedness” itself suggests that our “reason” ought to be occasionally “outraged”, because, like the reason of our superstitious and benighted religious ancestors, it probably leads us into a great many mistakes, errors, and delusions.Quote:
Yes, here White is correct. We should understand what made up Hitchens’ irreligious principles and ethical framework. How can we possibly be expected to trust a man who decries religion yet offers very little in the way of a description or framework of ethics as an alternative? Except, he does. On the very same page, in the very same paragraph that White quotes, Hitchens succinctly and brilliantly outlines his own version of an ethical and principled kind of reason: “Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”
The debate continues on Salon:
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/hitc...a_philosopher/
It is easier to manipulate a "good" family man into killing in the name of God, than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life at the expense of his own personal power and wealth. The good man is brainwashed with propaganda about how it is necessary to kill to preserve his family, home and nation; But how do you manipulate a wicked man to do something good when it will diminish his wealth and power? The vast majority today unfortunately falls into the "wicked" category. They selectively ignore the moral precepts you talk about when it interferes with their acquisition of more things. The vast majority is out there lying, cheating, stealing and pimping themselves because they have been brainwashed by evil corporations like Nike and Apple into wanting outrageously expensive IPhones and gaudy shoes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Institutions exist to protect the one percent and control the 99%. Preserving society is the propaganda. Thomas Hobbes says the "life of man is short, brutish and nasty." Because that is so man lives in terror. The Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov says that the masses give up their true freedom to the "institutions" in exchange for a slave job, some semblance of security and the promise of Heaven. But the institutions really only protect the property and safety of the one percent.
In "Matin" (from Season In Hell) Rimbaud says "When shall we go beyond the mountains and the shores to greet the birth of new toil of new wisdom, the flight of tyrants, of demons, the end of superstition .... Slaves let us not curse life." Never. That's when.
Excerpt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I think this hits the nail firmly on the proverbial head when it comes to my complaints about Hitch.Quote:
Hitchens’ informal style, the sort of brilliant uncle talking at a party, causes trouble because it appears that he skipped generations of important philosophers and certain intellectual traditions. How do you talk about religion and truth and knowledge without bringing in explicit questions of epistemology, of what we actually say about truth? All of these questions make some of Hitchens’ argument feel amateurish, like late-night dorm room philosophizing, which can be brilliant, but rarely precise. Not that academic jargon always matters one way or the other, but to discount countless theories on what it means to know, on the meaning of truth, makes Hitchens’ arguments sound simplistic.
To give a small example, at no point does anyone question the ability to know and learn anything specific from history. What historical events, especially trends that span many centuries, are ever so clear as to point to any sort of lesson. Let’s say we did sit down and judge the value of religion throughout history. How do you go about truly gauging the effects of religion on society? What counts as variables, as evidence, even as religion? History, as all historians of today will tell you, is not a science in that sense. How do you know what to put on the scales, and how much everything weighs? To begin to use point systems attests to the impossibility of this attempt. Moreover, how do you begin to assess cause and correlation? Does religion engender evil or provide an outlet? Couldn’t any system of government or societal makeup serve as an outlet for our violent tendencies? Again, I don’t agree with any of these positions, but not to flesh out these ambiguities makes Hitchens polemical and not philosophical. Polemics, while interesting, enlightening and often compelling, rarely further the conversation.
Anthropology informs us that this is dubious. Why? Many simpler societies (especially hunters and gatherers) are economically and politically egalitarian (or at least reasonably egalitarian). The political and economic institutions that may facilitate the continued authority of the 1% don’t exist in these societies, because the 1% don’t exist. However, religion exists. Is it reasonable to claim that religion (i.e. supernatural claims about causation, afterlife, etc.) functions in one way in these simpler societies, and in a completely different way in our society?Quote:
Originally Posted by papillondemai
Of course religion has changed over the centuries, and modern religion differs from the religions of hunters and gatherers. However, if we want to look at the ESSENCE of religion, then we must see the commonalities as well as the differences.
Also, I disagree that it is easier to “manipulate a good family man into killing… than it is to manipulate a wicked man into saving life….” Why would it be? This seems to assume that man is essentially self interested, which is clearly incorrect. Not only humans, but all (female) mammals routinely act against their own self interest by giving scarce resources they could use to improve their own lives to their offspring. Selflessness is an essential property of mammalian behavior. The “good” and the “wicked” alike behave this way.
Finally, the notion that we are all “brainwashed” by corporate “propaganda” seems elitist to me. It may condemn the economic 1%, but suggests that there is an intellectual 1% who are so clever as to be immune to such brainwashing. Somehow those who think Nike and Apple (or the Catholic Church) have “brainwashed” the masses have inevitably escaped these pernicious influences themselves. But why should they be better than the rest of us? Or (perhaps) are they simply “brainwashed” by different influential sources (Marxism, etc., etc.)?
Regarding the Salon article and Morpheus’s comment, it always seemed to me that Hitchens enjoyed invective as a literary style. However, he often appeared more interested in teasing and tweaking his (obtuse or imaginary) opponents in the debate than in actually pursuing the issue with any depth or subtlety.
That sentence would make more sense if "religion" were replaced with "self-righteousness". Self-righteousness is not something peculiar to religion. That flows through Christian antisemitism to racism all the way to the explicit and deadly atheism of the Khmer Rouge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
As I read Curtis White's criticism of Hitchens, although he focused on Hitchens' (and Dawkins') errors, it seemed this polemical self-righteousness is what bothered him the most. White ended his article with a quote by Nietzsche: “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.”
But, some might argue, why is that bad? What's wrong with presenting a Tarantino-style fantasy for mass consumption and profit? All of us seem to love hating the bad guy. We just need someone to define who that bad guy is. Well, Hitchens did not claim he was writing a novel or a movie and, of course, he has his free speech. He seemed to me to be attempting to generate hatred against real people, the kind you meet on the street, much like an antisemitic or racist person would. Much like a follower of Pol Pot would.
Thanks for bringing Curtis White to my attention, Ecurb. I've started reading his The Middle Mind: Why Americans Don't Think for Themselves (2003). If that turns out as good as it has started, I'll try the The Science Delusion.
Mistaken double post here. The one below is the correct one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
These "simpler societies" essentially no longer exist and are irrelevant. They have been murdered and marginalized so the one-percent could steal their land to rape, plunder and pillage it. There may be a small group of them left in a remote jungle in someplace like New Guinea, but they haven't been exterminated only because they are on land that has no oil or gold, or gas or coal or copper or bauxite or lithium or whatever they need to make more Iphones, more BMWs, more Air Jordans 11, more XBoxes or whatever gadget, trinket or piece of junk some debased child will shoot you for the change in your pocket in order to buy. The truth is that human beings are a blight upon the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I never said we are "all" brainwashed. But most of you are. If there was not some brainwashing, and by that I mean sophisticated consumer advertising which creates demand using manipulative psychological techniques, a kid would not shoot another kid to steal shoes he has been convinced he must have. "Selflessness is an essential property of mammalian behavior. The “good” and the “wicked” alike behave this way." You must live in never never land, not the real world. Where do you see selfless human beings? Hitchens has made a convincing argument that even someone like Mother Theresa was not selfless. If there was a significant amount of selflessness in the world, the world would not be as corrupt as it is. For example, the 1% has an untold number of trillions of dollars in the bank. The Dow keeps breaking records and every day it is at a new high. The people have no jobs and the most degenerate among them are out shooting people for the change in their pockets. But the 1% will not hire people because they didn't get yet more tax cuts. Animals may be "selfless" because they are biologically programmed that way. A canine ***** will give "scarce resources they could use to improve their own lives to their offspring" but a human ***** with a "rational" agenda which has overridden her biological programming will drop the offspring off at a fire station. Animals only abandon weaker offspring if it is necessary to save the others. Humans do it for the degenerate motive of convenience. You make your arguments that human beings are selfless because of your own self interest in wanting to believe that YOU are selfless. I have no self interest in needing to believe that I am selfless, and become more selfless than you by freely admitting that when push comes to shove I am going to save my own *** first. If you don't admit that you are the same, you are a liar or, worse, self-deceived, rather than selfless; and if you really wouldn't save your own *** first then you are a fool.
"....suggests that there is an intellectual 1% who are so clever as to be immune to such brainwashing." Wrong. There are an enlightened few among the 99% who are immune, people like me who won't pimp themselves out in order to acquire BMWs, the latest IPhones, and stupid shoes that moronic kids pay $1000.00 for, people who refuse to do whatever it takes to acquire more and more things which bring about the destruction of the environment. People like me who are not influenced by "Marxism" but rather people whose intrinsic decency have allowed them to resist the debasement and temptations of a consumption driven society.
"....it always seemed to me that Hitchens enjoyed invective as a literary style. However, he often appeared more interested in teasing and tweaking his (obtuse or imaginary) opponents...." This is what I find most appealing about Hitchens' writing. Can't you tell? He does "teasing and tweaking" so eloquently and his opponents usually deserve no sympathy!
I'm planning to take the White book back to the library. He seems to be rambling too much for my patience level expecting me to accept whatever he has to say on his own authority. Hitchens does the same thing, by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I still think White is correct about Hitchens. I just don't see a reason to spend any more time pursing his "middle mind" concept.
I like some of Hitchens' essays. Your post, however, is nonsensical. “Simpler societies… are irrelevant”, you write. Irrelevant to what? They are surely NOT irrelevant to any discussion of the function of religion in society, or to a discussion of how that function developed and evolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by papillondemai
Papillondemai continues, “There are an enlightened few among the 99% who are immune, people like me who won't pimp themselves out in order to acquire BMWs, the latest IPhones, and stupid shoes that moronic kids pay $1000.00 for, people who refuse to do whatever it takes to acquire more and more things which bring about the destruction of the environment. People like me who are not influenced by "Marxism" but rather people whose intrinsic decency have allowed them to resist the debasement and temptations of a consumption driven society.”
Oh. If only I’d known you were one of the “enlightened few” I wouldn’t have contradicted you. How are you able to post here on Literary Forum without a computer, I wonder? Surely you haven’t been “brainwashed” (by that I mean being influenced by “sophisticated consumer advertising which creates demand using manipulative psychological techniques.”), have you?
Papillondemai has not succumbed to cultural influences: he is ruled by “intrinsic decency”. Somehow, however, his “intrinsic decency” does not prevent him from calling everyone else “a blight upon the earth”.
My favorite bit of Papillondemai nonsense, however, is: “. I have no self interest in needing to believe that I am selfless, and become more selfless than you by freely admitting that when push comes to shove I am going to save my own *** first. If you don't admit that you are the same, you are a liar or, worse, self-deceived, rather than selfless; and if you really wouldn't save your own *** first then you are a fool.”
Let’s see. By admitting that he is selfish, Pap is ACTUALLY selfless. Such is his “intrinsic (if illogical) decency”, shining like a beacon of hope that the rest of us can vainly hope to emulate.