The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[HitchSlap]

No offense, but posting someones argument instead of making your own just seems to be lazy.

Yep. I've made it too many times before, don't want to be bothered. Plus, Hitch is so more eloquent than I.

 

[Cearbhall]

As long as they haven´t given any affirmative statement to the contrary they don´t have to defend anything.

Yep. I think it might be even more frustrating to be an agnostic atheist than it is to be a straight-up atheist, because religious people who understand the difference seem to have a reaction that goes something like "You think that I could be right, so how come you don't decide that I'm right when I give you arguments that you've heard countless times from people of every faith tradition?!!"

And I want to say "Um, because you're not that special. Sorry."

 

[quatona]

A video of a man who spent a good portion of his life railing against a God he did not believe even existed???

Isn´t it funny how you insist on being presented arguments by affirmative atheists, and once you are presented them you reject to consider them because...the guy making them is an affirmative atheist?

 

[Elioenai26]

As long as they haven´t given any affirmative statement to the contrary they don´t have to defend anything.

As long as they don´t do anything but challenging you to substantiate your claims they don´t affirm anything and consequently don´t have to defend anything.

If atheists did what you are saying they should, then there would be no "debates" at all...

Even raising an objection to your argument means just raising an objection to your argument (which doesn´t even necessarily imply a disagreement with your position- after all, there can be poor arguments for valid positions; and every intellectually honest person will point out the flaws of an argument even when it´s brought forth in the attempt to substantiate his own position).

Implicit in raising an objection is the idea that the objector objects or "disagrees" with something said.

Yes, that´s why I am recommending anyone who doesn´t hold an affirmative (strong) atheist position to abstain from engaging in a debate about the existence of God, in the first place.

No one is going to listen to you, at least I do not think they will. You are a unique example of a person who has beliefs, but is reluctant to express them in a way that makes them open to scrutiny.

Everyone else can simply wait for the positive claimant to make his case, and then scrutinize the validity of his arguments without taking any position on the question at all.

That is not much fun now is it? I mean what fun would it be for me to read your posts, scrutinize it to myself silently and not express my views about what you said?

 

[quatona]

If atheists did what you are saying they should, then there would be no "debates" at all...

Yes. So what?

Implicit in raising an objection is the idea that the objector objects or "disagrees" with something said.

Implicit is only that he objects to the validity of the given argument - implicit is not a particular position on the issue discussed.

No one is going to listen to you, at least I do not think they will. You are a unique example of a person who has beliefs, but is reluctant to express them in a way that makes them open to scrutiny.

Ad hominem and poor attempt at mind reading noted.
I am holding quite a few beliefs (and anyone who asks me because they are interested in them will hear them) , but none of them has anything whatsoever to do with that god concept of yours.
On another note, I don´t even see any need to defend my private beliefs, because
1. I don´t offensively present them as being correct, and
2. they are "beliefs", not truth claims.
There´s a reason for that: I have no rational justification for them. I welcome and encourage anyone to disagree with them.
The last thing I´d do would be to put them up for a debate. Beliefs and debates don´t match.

My beliefs and your beliefs aren´t competing. They aren´t even close to being in the same ballpark.
Thus, knowing my beliefs won´t help you defend your god concept, and knowing your god concept doesn´t help me defend my beliefs. My beliefs have no place in a discussion or a debate about your god concept.

Now you know why I am reluctant to express my beliefs in a discussion (even less: a debate) about your god concept.

That is not much fun now is it?

Well, I don´t feel under any obligation to help you have fun, to begin with.

I mean what fun would it be for me to read your posts, scrutinize it to myself silently and not express my views about what you said?

Well, since that´s not at all implied by what I have said I´ll file that in the folder "Elionenai´s strawmen".

 

[Davian]

If saying: "You are wrong..." counts for "showing one's position to be faulty", then yes you are right.

Only internet infidels take that approach however. Most atheists in academia actually try to say a little more than that....

Sure, but it is all that is needed for when dealing with an internet apologist.

Strawman. I never said he had to "prove the absence" of anything

You said "In order for this argument to be sound, you would have to demonstrate that there is no supernatural or transcendant realm..."

Is someone else posting using your account?

I agree.

You will have to provide good reasons or an argument as to why positing a transcendent creator of the cosmos provides no explanatory power. Just saying so does not make it so.

Because "transcendant" only tells us what you think it isn't.

Well #1 gets there simply because it is viewed as a hypothesis that has explanatory scope, explanatory power and is parsimonous, and falsifiable among other things.

"Just saying so does not make it so." - Elioenai26

Again, care to provide a falsifiable positive ontology for this "transcendent creator"?

 

[HitchSlap]

If atheists did what you are saying they should, then there would be no "debates" at all...

Actually, if theists made good on their claims, we wouldn't be here to challenge their assertions.

 

[Elioenai26]

You said "In order for this argument to be sound, you would have to demonstrate that there is no supernatural or transcendant realm..."

You use the words "prove" and "demonstrate" interchangeably, I do not.

I can demonstrate or show via philosophical argument that God exists. I would not say that I could "prove" God exists through said arguments.

Because "transcendant" only tells us what you think it isn't.

1. If the word 'transcendent' is used as an adjective to describe a noun in a hypothesis, then said hypothesis has no explanatory power.
2. The word 'transcendent' is used as an adjective to describe a noun (creator) in the hypothesis: 'A transcendent creator created the cosmos'.
3. Therefore, the hypothesis 'A transcendent creator created the cosmos' has no explanatory power.

Now, I will wait for you to demonstrate why premise 1. and 2. are more plausibly true than their contradictories.

"Just saying so does not make it so."

- Elioenai26

You are right. My support for said assertion is the rich history of God as one of the most if not most central topic in philosophical discourse ever since men began doing philosophy. Reference Aristotle and the like....

And also please reference the Stanford Encyclopedia of Apologetics as well as the Internet Encyclopedia of Apologetics.

Again, care to provide a falsifiable positive ontology for this "transcendent creator"?

No. The reason is primarily because I have already demonstrated to you why ignosticism, theological non-congnitivism is self defeating and has been abandoned by everybody but internet infidels and youtube pseudo-philosophers.

 

[Cearbhall]

Yes. So what?

Exactly. The only reason I spend any time debating religion is because some people think that it's a valid argument when deciding what I can and cannot legally do. I wish that I didn't have a reason to debate religion.

 

[Elioenai26]

Actually, if theists made good on their claims, we wouldn't be here to challenge their assertions.

Unless you hate God and are perpetually nauseated by Him and His followers.

 

[HitchSlap]

I can demonstrate or show via philosophical argument that God exists. I would not say that I could "prove" God exists through said arguments.

I can demonstrate or show via philosophical argument that [insert favorite deity here] exists. At the end of the day, it's best to base your beliefs on evidence, however.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes. So what?



Implicit is only that he objects to the validity of the given argument - implicit is not a particular position on the issue discussed.




Ad hominem and poor attempt at mind reading noted.
I am holding quite a few beliefs (and anyone who asks me because they are interested in them will hear them) , but none of them has anything whatsoever to do with that god concept of yours.
On another note, I don´t even see any need to defend my private beliefs, because
1. I don´t offensively present them as being correct, and
2. they are "beliefs", not truth claims.
There´s a reason for that: I have no rational justification for them. I welcome and encourage anyone to disagree with them.
The last thing I´d do would be to put them up for a debate. Beliefs and debates don´t match.

My beliefs and your beliefs aren´t competing. They aren´t even close to being in the same ballpark.
Thus, knowing my beliefs won´t help you defend your god concept, and knowing your god concept doesn´t help me defend my beliefs. My beliefs have no place in a discussion or a debate about your god concept.

Now you know why I am reluctant to express my beliefs in a discussion (even less: a debate) about your god concept.



Well, I don´t feel under any obligation to help you have fun, to begin with.
Well, since that´s not at all implied by what I have said I´ll file that in the folder "Elionenai´s strawmen".

Ok...so what?

 

[Cearbhall]

Unless you hate God and are perpetually nauseated by Him and His followers.

How can you expect us to take you seriously when you say things like that?

 

[Elioenai26]

I can demonstrate or show via philosophical argument that [insert favorite deity here] exists. At the end of the day, it's best to base your beliefs on evidence, however.

I agree!

 

[Elioenai26]

How can you expect us to take you seriously when you say things like that?

Say things like the truth?

It is no mystery, Christopher Hitchens as I stated earlier, spent the majority of his life railing against God and those who believed in God, a God, by the way, who he did not believe existed (go figure), and we have a fan of his here doing the same thing, only he has not an ounce of the spit-fire venom that the real Hitch had...

And like the real Hitch, he probably hates those who follow Christ, although he would never venture to say it openly, and makes use of his time here generally posting one or two line quips that take very little effort.

Tisk tisk, I do believe old Hitch would be disappointed in him...

 

[Cearbhall]

Say things like the truth?

It is no mystery, Christopher Hitchens as I stated earlier, spent the majority of his life railing against God and those who believed in God, a God, by the way, who he did not believe existed (go figure), and we have a fan of his here doing the same thing, only he has not an ounce of the spit-fire venom that the real Hitch had...

You fail to see the whole point of his actions. While I don't condone hatred, he was frustrated that such a huge system of irrationality is glorified and that it has so much influence over his life. It does get freaking annoying.

 

[HitchSlap]

Say things like the truth?

It is no mystery, Christopher Hitchens as I stated earlier, spent the majority of his life railing against God and those who believed in God, a God, by the way, who he did not believe existed (go figure), and we have a fan of his here doing the same thing, only he has not an ounce of the spit-fire venom that the real Hitch had...

And like the real Hitch, he probably hates those who follow Christ, although he would never venture to say it openly, and makes use of his time here generally posting one or two line quips that take very little effort.

Tisk tisk, I do believe old Hitch would be disappointed in him...

Hitch did not spend "the majority of his life railing against God and those who believed in God," he was rather good at it though. In fact, most of his books and writings had nothing to do with gods and faith.

I do not "hate those who follow Christ," get over your persecution complex. In fact, I have not once personally insulted you. Grow up.

 

[Cearbhall]

I do not "hate those who follow Christ," get over your persecution complex. In fact, I have not once personally insulted you. Grow up.

One of my favorite examples is the claim that same-sex couples who want to get legally married are actually out to destroy the Christian version of the institution of marriage.

Sorry, not everything is about religion...

 

[bhsmte]

Say things like the truth?

It is no mystery, Christopher Hitchens as I stated earlier, spent the majority of his life railing against God and those who believed in God, a God, by the way, who he did not believe existed (go figure), and we have a fan of his here doing the same thing, only he has not an ounce of the spit-fire venom that the real Hitch had...

And like the real Hitch, he probably hates those who follow Christ, although he would never venture to say it openly, and makes use of his time here generally posting one or two line quips that take very little effort.

Tisk tisk, I do believe old Hitch would be disappointed in him...

I think you are going a bit overboard here.

Hitchens was flamboyant and I know that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off a lot of people who didn't agree with him, that I can understand.

When you peel back the onion though, the guy backed up his opinions with a tremendous amount of depth, logic, knowledge of both religions and science. This is much more than can be said of the vast majority of his debate opponents.

I also don't think he hated people who believed in God, but I do think he was taken aback by what he felt was an extreme amount of ignorance and lack of independent thinking.

 

[Skavau]

Say things like the truth?

It is no mystery, Christopher Hitchens as I stated earlier, spent the majority of his life railing against God and those who believed in God,

No he didn't.

That you're unaware of Hitchen's other work does not mean he spent most of his life railing against God.

And like the real Hitch, he probably hates those who follow Christ, although he would never venture to say it openly, and makes use of his time here generally posting one or two line quips that take very little effort.

I don't recall at all ever where Hitchens said he hates people who follow Christ.