Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Fourth, my aim with this debate was to get to learn about your world view, fairly personally.

Also, I note that you make this a case against Christianity rather than against religiousness as such. Christianity is our culturally traditional downtrending religion, already submissive and doesn't resist much. If you think that by refuting one easy victim among religions you refute them all, I disagree. It would be thinking like by refuting Newtonian physics one refutes all physics, or perhaps even all science.

So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?

As language cannot describe the severity of the divine vengeance on the reprobate, their pains and torments are figured to us by corporeal things, such as darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, inextinguishable fire, the ever-gnawing worm (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; Mark 9:43; Isaiah 66:24). It is certain that by such modes of expression the Holy Spirit designed to impress all our senses with dread […] Wherefore, the Apostle made no trivial declaration, when he said that unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

Or maybe you didn't listen to the reason. Such as, if good and evil people exist, and God is just, then appropriate reward and punishment for the people also exist. Where would you put Hitler? In heaven? With Hitler there, how can you call it heaven?

The more serious question to you is this: What is a good reason for you? Good according to whom? Good according to hippies? Religions are well-rehearsed in defining good and evil. Let's see you perform better right now.

Of course I am perfectly aware that you won't define anything. As long as this is so, it's dishonest of me to accept any of your judgements that some things are good or evil. You have to make the concepts of good and evil intelligible first, then it will be intelligible to judge. Your judgements thus far are unintelligible.

Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.

How does the semantics of these statements work for you? What is the theoretical concept system that provides the background against which you read them? The answer appears to be that since these staments make a mockery of theological definitions, then this is for you a sufficient reason for accepting them, nevermind that at the same go they violate any and all logical definitions, including the rules of scientific terminology and taxonomy. I am simply baffled how this is all okay for you. But okay, I just take note and move on.

Above you casually mentioned something called apathism to Jim. This sounds like it could explain much.

but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.

Tomas of Aquino has demonstrated why it is wrong centuries ago.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-02-18, 20:17:02

Tomas of Aquino has demonstrated why it is wrong centuries ago.

My 6 years old daughter knows more about the facts of life than he knew.

I hope not. He was known for having a life of vice before entering monastery.

There are priests today who like boys little boys, so you don't have to burrow into the past for examples of divines gone bad.

Hopefully, Francis will be more successful at dealing with that problem, but it doesn't look hopeful at the moment.

house wifes

And plumbers, English teachers, military, house wifes, etc...

Indeed, but none of take vows of celibacy. They are all scum, however.

Ersi MUST be wrong - just because he "needs" so way too many words to "explain" "the truth".

You already know my world view. Everything is physical, and morality is based on feelings.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-19, 00:08:10

So, you say "God sends billions of people to Hell for being born in the wrong place at the wrong time" is mainstream Christianity. Then I suppose it won't be too hard for you to dig up an actual reference for this claim by a theologian you consider mainstream, right?

Missionaries exist to save souls.

Quote from: John Calvin

[...]unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (2 Thessalonians 1:9).

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-19, 00:08:10

Everybody have parents who enable their birth. We don't enable our own birth. The same way, the entire humanity has a parent or guardian. Without it, the common properties and concepts shared by all humans, such free will, responsibility, good and evil, etc. don't make sense and should provide no topic.

Above all, those three paragraphs are a giant red herring. I reply only to say that ignorance of evolutionary theory can be cured by reading The Selfish Gene or one of its more up-to-date successors (e.g. Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True or one of Dawkins' own later works), and ignorance of cognitive neuroscience and its philosophical implications might be cured by reading something by e.g. Damasio or Dennett.

No, Harris wasn't laying out a world view. So what?

In the sense I meant it, you too are an apatheist. Whether or not God exists, God helps those who help themselves (and others).

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-19, 00:08:10

but if I would, another debate with you is precisely the way. Thank you very much.

Textual debates especially, but to some extent also radio debates, are a very different animal compared to debates you attend in person or watch on TV.

So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.

I can see now how the rest of what you've said largely makes sense - from your point of view. I can see how Harris has become to enjoy your admiration, even though I haven't encountered a single favourable review of his books. "Morality is based on feelings" easily translates to "I'm right because I have a burning extrovert passion that drives me to condemn what disgusts and repulses me. It feels right to me to do it, therefore it is right that I do it." This is the gist of Harris for me. The more I hear of him, the more this impression solidifies.

The Bible verse I cited implies a brighter eternity for any Good Gentile, but I can see how from neoatheist (and militant fundie - these two are of the same mind) point of view, the mere emergence of the question already gives sufficient reason to jump to "Anyone born in the wrong place at the wrong time will go to hell."

Also, Harris' video never was the topic for me. It merely gave an occasion to talk about how things really are from non-atheist perspective, if you care to drop the double standards some day. Henceforth, I disregard points on Christianity.

My aim with the concept of guardian of humanity was fairly modest. I was merely putting a name on the metaphysical placeholder of common properties and values of humanity. The reasoning goes this way: Life exists. Free will exists. So do all the other human capacities and values. Where do they exist? How? This is where the metaphysical placeholder comes into play. This is how universals work in the realist perspective - there are metaphysical placeholders, species and categories ('realism' as technically understood in philosophy). This is standard philosophy, but of course I understand that this is something you refuse to acknowledge.

So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.

1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)

2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.

Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.

And "Whether or not God exists" sticks out as unnecessarily undermining its own context. It's semantically discrepant and rhetorically superfluous.

So to some extent we are at cross purposes here. But it is an interesting consequence of your concept of an aloof God that it rather rubbishes the idea of any religion based on its own conception of God. No religion is correct (because correctness is not a human prerogative), nor is it important which one is followed, nor does it matter anyway because “God” will continue to ignore what is done. To assign consequences to acts one needs to enter into religions again, which is a futile act because none can ever be correct.

We’ve clashed over the matter of evidence for God, or rather the lack of it, and the answer always amounts to “don’t expect physical proof, the proof lies in properly applied reasoning and my reasoning is better than yours, therefore there is a God”. I’m sorry but that remains not very convincing.

But, as an agnostic myself (with, I admit, atheist leanings) I am comfortable with the idea of positing alternative God Concepts and exploring what it would mean, as long the result is not put forward as “THE TRUTH”, the same as in all those defunct Religions.

Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-19, 23:51:58

So, sorry, but no science has any philosophical implications. Science and philosophy are distinct disciplines for a good reason. They will forever remain distinct.

I suspect you may be thinking of theology; Philosophy is derived from the Greek Philosophia, love of Wisdom.

Not that theology is the private playground of anyone either.

Without science, your inductive reasoning can basically be described as garbage in, garbage out.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-19, 23:51:58

1. Destructive criticism. Demonstrate the internal incoherence of the world view by means of the tools that built the self-same world view. You have to use the same tools, concepts and reasoning which built the world view, because if you can make it implode by its own methods, then this is what it means to demonstrate its internal incoherence. (But if instead you go with irrationality against rationality, you are not demonstrating the internal incoherence of rationality. You are only demonstrating your own irrationality.)

Translation: "How dare you not accept my utterly ludicrous premises! You should take my premises and try to find something inconsistent in my reasoning based on those premises instead." It does not matter one iota how internally coherent your views are if they do not align with reality.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-19, 23:51:58

2. Constructive criticism. Offer a better alternative. To replace a world view, build another world view and demonstrate how it's better, has a bigger explanatory scope, is more economic or elegant, etc. In the constructive approach, it definitely takes a properly laid out world view to challenge a world view.

Whether destructive or constructive, Harris miserably failed at criticism.

Just because he didn't spell out the (seemingly) obvious conclusions? A proper argument should give you the facts in such a way that you can make up your own mind about them, not get you to regurgitate the conclusions.

Quote from: string on 19 February '14, 11:18:34
Religion has been responsible (and still is) for all kind of atrocities and wasted lives. Reason enough I would think.
Yes, I know. It's tough. Still, my immediate ancestors experienced the regimes of Stalin and Lenin. Reason enough to think about atheism too. Think well.

Would you mind thinking, genius?
All sorts of ideology are quasireligions - or even religions formally.

Better translation: Know well what you criticise. This is to make the implosion of the construct doubly certain, if this is what you definitely want - and safe for both of the parties involved, if you care about lives. Harris' performance was subpar.

I agree with your "should" bit. Harris failed by this very measure.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that I am defending Craig here. The fact that I don't side with Harris doesn't mean I side with Craig. They are both annoying obstacles for me to get myself across to YOU.

I need to rest for a few days now. No, I am not asking for permission. I just take it.

Please, take weeks. I should be doing other things.

Quote from: Josh on 2014-02-20, 11:20:49

Would you mind thinking, genius?
All sorts of ideology are quasireligions - or even religions formally.

Ouch! You pricked the Russian in Josh, String. Be kinder next time.

At any rate, name one religion that's doing harm in the world today.

I think Josh was reacting to ersi's emark, not mine. That happens sometimes in the way quotes are displayed, it can be misleading.