Stephen Frys Beautiful words on a world without God

[FigerPuppet]

I think it would only be natural for a christian to argue against atheism just as it is natural for an atheist to argue against religion, but where these debates tend to go wrong is in lieu of accepting the arguments at face value and prior to entering the discussion accepting that no common ground will be reached - only greater understanding - people instead get batshit insane and start launching attacks on one another's battleships...

Then nobody can hear over the noise and... by the end of the conversation nothing has been gained. It's just my opinion, but these conversations are typically much more productive when each person refrains from taking the statements of the other personally...

Obviously you can still have disagreements regarding religions... Two cannon lawyers might disagree on the interpretation of a law or some people may disagree about the interpretation of the bible... but those cases are hardly the equivalent of discussing personal religious beliefs that again cannot be quantified or even proven... whereas when you are arguing specifically about differences within the same religion the certain assumptions are already accepted as true...

just my two cents..

I think you have the wrong idea about what I have been writing, because I never made the argument that you can't argue against atheism. What I have been arguing is

1. that you can't say "Oh look, these 3 geniuses believed in God, therefore there must be something to it" (kevrawlings' appeal to authority, basically) &
2. 2/3 of kevrawlings' premise is false because Stephen Hawking is an agnostic atheist [1] and Einstein believed in Spinoza's God [2] which is nothing like the personal God that I assume kevrawlings referenced to.*

*:

their discoveries were only humble attempts to understand the mind of God.

Also, this debate won't go on much longer if Smileyman insists on arguing in pictures. ZING!

 

[Mole]

Yes, Kev and Spin, I am drawing the distinction between conversation and violence.

It seems to me that conversation and violence are polar opposites.

And it turns out I am opposed to political violence but am committed to conversation.

So I look for conversational partners.

I find them among atheists and theists, but I draw the line at violent atheists or theists.

So for instance, I am opposed to violent revolution, whether it is of the bourgeois variety of 1776 or whether the proletarian variety of 1917.

And naturally I am opposed to violent jihad and martyrdom.

And my Parliament is a good example of the never-ending-conversation, for even when we were facing national extinction in 1942, our Parliament continued to meet and continued our conversation.

And like the Roman Senate, we would have continued to talk even as the Vandals entered the Chamber with weapons.

But our greatest weapon is sheer enjoyment - the sheer enjoyment of conversation.

And we do. We allow ourselves. We allow ourselves enjoyment.

 

[kevrawlings]

You can go by Wikipedia, but the Hawking quote is from the horses mouth. It's clear that he had serious doubts about scientific reductionism.

As for Spinoza's God, that comma in his name shows ownership and shouldn't be there. Spinoza can have a theory about God, and it should be called something along the lines of "Spinoza's theory on God".

Either way, unless you're talkin polytheism, God is God is God is God. The theories vary, but the God remains.

Einsteins quote stands unscathed and still supports theism.

 

[kevrawlings]

Also, by quoting them I only meant to point out a huge flaw in the supposed glaring contradiction between science and faith.

 

[Mole]

God is God is God is God.

And God is God is God, just as a rose is a rose is a rose.

But some say God is dead.

While others say God is Dad.

 

[FigerPuppet]

You can go by Wikipedia, but the Hawking quote is from the horses mouth. It's clear that he had serious doubts about scientific reductionism.

The horse's mouth being his ex-wife? I understand why you don't trust that source, but even if disregarded he still appears to be an agnostic atheist in the original sense of the two words (go back a few pages and find the post in which ajbalise addresses this).

Either way, unless you're talkin polytheism, God is God is God is God. The theories vary, but the God remains.

Einsteins quote stands unscathed and still supports theism.

I never claimed he wasn't a theist. What I did claim was that he didn't believe in a personal God. Spinoza's God is not a personal God, the kind of God in which you believe and whose existence you are arguing for by appealing to authority.

And no, Einstein's quote doesn't "support" theism.


EDIT: And now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna watch a movie. Debates on God and religion always burn me out very fast because of all the semantics, proof-reading and explaining-work, though I will read your response, kevrawlings.

 

[kevrawlings]

YouTube - Eminem - When I'm Gone

This is an awesome song, man, these Mike's "harder" lemonades are strong! Bein on summer is great . . .

Random segue, sorry y'all.

 

[kevrawlings]

Oops, I posted this before I read the above comment, didn't mean it as a flippant disregard.

 

[kevrawlings]

And God is God is God, just as a rose is a rose is a rose.

But some say God is dead.

While others say God is Dad.

God, to me, is so much more than a paternal figure. Infinitely more. Actually, maybe He could be considered the most paternal figure.

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

I think you have the wrong idea about what I have been writing, because I never made the argument that you can't argue against atheism.

I never said that you did... first I responded to your post stating that he had misinterpreted what Einstein said regarding god.. and I provided a quote and a link that I felt was relevant to that particular post...

Then I responded to a post that you made regarding kevrawlings arguing atheism which wasn't an attack on your position or his but rather my observation of why a christian might find it natural to argue against atheism just as a atheist might find it natural to argue against christianity and other religions... it wasn't addressed at your points specifically or kevrawlings' points...

Then I responded to Kevrawlings' post about "blind faith" and that post was not specifically addressed to you, but rather a post about my general observations regarding these types of debates... I did not specifically mention you because I was not debating your position or kevrawlings' position.. I was simply making a statement.. if you don't agree with that statement that's fine but it wasn't directed at you personally so there is no need for you to take it that way...

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

Yes, Kev and Spin, I am drawing the distinction between conversation and violence.

I'm going to be honest Victor I have no idea what you're talking about and this is where I stopped reading your post... I wasn't referring to violence, just conversation..

Not sure where you're getting that from? The battleship thing was a metaphor - if that's even what you're referring to... I honestly and truly have no idea...

 

[Mole]

He [God] could be considered the most paternal figure.

Almost patriarchal.

 

[kevrawlings]

Sorry guys, I've been drinking and it's gonna get a lot less pedantic and articulate from here. Not that I'm anywhere near drunk, but they do say that a drunk tounge speaks a sober mind . . . soooo.

The horses mouth being the person that said it. Fact: Hawking said what I said he said.
Einstein said what I said he said as well, and I'm no Einstein, but if he said it, I'd say that scores some points for theism.

 

[Mole]

I'm going to be honest Victor I have no idea what you're talking about and this is where I stopped reading your post... I wasn't referring to violence, just conversation..

Not sure where you're getting that from? The battleship thing was a metaphor - if that's even what you're referring to... I honestly and truly have no idea...

I wasn't referring to anything you have written, I was simply expressing my own convictions.

 

[kevrawlings]

Almost patriarchal.

Exactly.

 

[Helios]

Either way, unless you're talkin polytheism, God is God is God is God. The theories vary, but the God remains.

Einsteins quote stands unscathed and still supports theism.

If Einstein was a theist at all, he was a disinterested deist, not a believer in your anthropomorphic deity. This is a nuance that should be not be casually dismissed.

Moreover, your claim that the quotation you provide from Einstein "supports" theism is misguided and naive, and would be dismissed as ludicrous by an informed theist. For you commit this well known fallacy:

"We make an appeal to authority whenever we try to justify an idea by citing some source of expertise as a reason for holding that idea. Appeals to authority are often valid, as when we tell someone to use a certain medicine because the doctor has prescribed it. But appeals to authority can be fallacious, as when we cite those who have no special competence regarding the matter at hand. The fallacy of appeal to authority, therefore, is an argument that attempts to overawe an opponent into accepting a conclusion by playing on his or her reluctance to challenge famous people, time-honored customs, or widely held beliefs. The fallacy appeals, at base, to our feelings of modesty, to our sense that others know better than we do."

(S. Morris Engel (2000), With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 6th ed., New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, pp.238-239.)

There are many academic means available to a theist who wishes to inform him or herself of good reasons for believing in a god of sophisticated monotheism. Trudging through archives of excerpts from famous academics in an attempt to find quotations sympathetic to theism in general, and Christianity in particular, would be imprudent of such a theist.

 

[kevrawlings]

If Einstein was a theist at all, he was a disinterested deist, not a believer in your anthropomorphic deity. This is a nuance that should be not be casually dismissed.

Moreover, your claim that the quotation you provide from Einstein "supports" theism is misguided and naive, and would be dismissed as ludicrous by an informed theist. For you commit this well known fallacy:

"We make an appeal to authority whenever we try to justify an idea by citing some source of expertise as a reason for holding that idea. Appeals to authority are often valid, as when we tell someone to use a certain medicine because the doctor has prescribed it. But appeals to authority can be fallacious, as when we cite those who have no special competence regarding the matter at hand. The fallacy of appeal to authority, therefore, is an argument that attempts to overawe an opponent into accepting a conclusion by playing on his or her reluctance to challenge famous people, time-honored customs, or widely held beliefs. The fallacy appeals, at base, to our feelings of modesty, to our sense that others know better than we do."

(S. Morris Engel (2000), With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, 6th ed., New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, pp.238-239.)

There are many academic means available to a theist who wishes to inform him or herself of good reasons for believing in a god of sophisticated monotheism. Trudging through archives of excerpts from famous academics in an attempt to find quotations sympathetic to theism in general, and Christianity in particular, would be imprudent of such a theist.

LOL Yeah, he was so disinterested that he whittled away his golden years and died alone in his attic trying to discover a grand unified theory. I'd say he was pretty interested in God and his works, arguably the most interested person of the last century.

And your writing style is so formal, geez-loueez. Let your point stand on its own without all of the ornamentation.

If you wanted to cite a better rebuttal to an appeal to authority, you should have cited Milgram.

The Einstein quote does support theism, just as the statement, "cars have wheels", supports the idea of the existence of cars. If I didn't believe in cars, I wouldn't have made the statement, especially from someone who was as careful with his words as Einstein was. After all, Dawkins doesn't talk about God, only the "idea" or "concept" of God. He would never say a statement that used God as a flat fact.

 

[kevrawlings]

If anyone reading this is more reputable than Einstein, Tesla, or Hawking, please comment and contradict them.

And please, people, stop bringing my Christianity into play - because I never did. We are talking theism/atheism here - nothing more. Because, for some people, that's a big leap.

 

[spin-1/2-nuclei]

I wasn't referring to anything you have written, I was simply expressing my own convictions.

Victor is there someone else in this thread that you're calling spin in the "Kev, and Spin" portion of your post that appears in the quoted text version of my previous post?

 

[Helios]

LOL Yeah, he was so disinterested that he whittled away his golden years and died alone in his attic trying to discover a grand unified theory. I'd say he was pretty interested in God and his works, arguably the most interested person of the last century.

I don't believe I claimed that he was disinterested in the natural world, but rather in god-worship, rituals, doctrines, sacraments, rigid ethical precepts and every other religious addition.

And your writing style is so formal, geez-loueez. Let your point stand on its own without all of the ornamentation.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. However, you may benefit from looking at my profile information; what you perceive as "ornamentation" is likely me trying to be clear and precise, notwithstanding my inability to do so to my level of satisfaction.

If you wanted to cite a better rebuttal to an appeal to authority, you should have cited Milgram.

There is no need to "rebut" an appeal to authority; it is an informal fallacy, and that is all there is to the matter. The quotation served to show that you were committing the fallacy.

I'm also a bit puzzled about your mentioning of Milgram*. Many of the participants in his experiments claimed that an authority figure (e.g. doctor) had told them to administer (apparently) painful and eventually lethal electrical voltages to who they believed was another participant in the experiment, and that the doctor's command itself was adequate justification for doing so. This is, at most, tangentially relevant.

The Einstein quote does support theism, just as the statement, "cars have wheels", supports the idea of the existence of cars. If I didn't believe in cars, I wouldn't have made the statement, especially from someone who was as careful with his words as Einstein was.

This strikes me as confused. I agree that the quotation from Einstein strongly suggests that he believed in a god, as he appears to need to assume that one exists in order for his statement to be comprehensible. Nevertheless, what Einstein believed about theism is irrelevant to the plausibility of theism. This is the point.

I recommend that you read my first response to you in this thread more carefully.

*Buy this book if you are interested in Milgram's experiments, by the way. It's a great read.