Sam Harris quietly takes down and chokeholds jewish theist
- Thread starter 3rd Raikage
- Start date
Legendary Saiyan
Active member
Chikombo
Active member
Awards
It's sad how people try to defend religion. Attacking it is stealing candy from babies.
I think people only defend it cus it's so personal to them. It's like defending your family, you don't care if it doesn't make sense.
I think people only defend it cus it's so personal to them. It's like defending your family, you don't care if it doesn't make sense.
Chikombo
Active member
Awards
whatever, this seems like Sam Harris in a nutshell his point is always that religion simply isn't appropiate. he isn't againstit for personal reasons. objectively its dumb.You know what doesn't make sense? Your last 2 posts.
Last edited:
I could give you a ton of examples where I myself "won" against atheists as well as defended my belief in God against criticisms on this very forum. Just look at the 2 recent threads I made
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
Chikombo
Active member
Awards
Yea those threads are good, I just feel like James Bond could never be religious you know. I don't mean to disrespect religion but it's like really hard to defend it, you are obviously smart but like the mainstream idea is that atheists slam dunk religios people like teenagers bullying kids. I'm not convinced personally at least.
Last edited:
3rd Raikage
Member
In your first example I found posts from Immortal, Fiji, Shelke and Lili-Chwan that already quite eloquently criticized your points. The latter two really pointed out what's flawed in your essay. And you only replied to one of them. Moreover what Fiji said about these debates never ending is right because you are so deep in metaphysics and the world of philosophy that basically no one can prove you wrong if they can't disprove god itself. You replying back with the example of flat-earthers really goes against your own argument, I'm sure you see it by now.
There's nothing to "win" for you on these philoshophical matters on god. You haven't proven atheists wrong because you can't. Atheism doesn't deal with philosophical evidence but rather with empirical evidence. The latter is something religious people don't have.
You are just arguing for the possibility of god and no one isn't really denying it. Same as how no one isn't really denying the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster. I could use your logic and defend the belief in the pink unicorn, but that would be ridiculous right? If you think it would be ridiculous, well..need I say more.
I find it funny how you call their objections "eloquent criticism" because the only one who actually threw proper objections was Lili and as you can see I have answered every point she raised so where does the "eloquent" part come into play? I didn't answer shelke's post because he asked how basic deductive argumentation works which I explained clearly in the OP. It could hardly be clearer than that. Aside from this, he never really presented any explicit problem with my post.
What goes for fiji, I have answered him too and, again, it's funny how you call it eloquent criticism when he basically just said that argumentation I presented was circular and failed to see the distinction between validity and soundness. After refuting the videos he linked (a cheap move btw) he never answered, merely hinting "Glad we're on the same page" in refference to me not trying to prove God when really we weren't on the same page at all.
You saying that I'm "too deep" in philosophy, and this being the reason why me nor atheist can prove their stances, comes off as a bad joke. For one, you're ignoring the fact that this always was and will be a philosophical matter and hence always was and still is discussed by great vigor among the philosophical circles. You're making a hugely ignorant claim if you're suggesting that philosophy can't prove things.
If you actually bothered to read my thread and not just skim through it looking for atheist' posts you'd notice that I've devoted a whole section of the OP to bold. Either you haven't read it or you're have but are dismissing it without any justification, either way you're making yourself look bad.
And no, atheism is far from being empirical. Atheism is actually a stance that there is no God. How you go about supporting it with can vary. Greatest support for atheism actually comes from philosophy with empirical evidence only playing a role in supporting philosophical points so the irony is great here.
@bold: That's false. Plenty of people claim that the concept of God is incoherent and as such cannot exist, even as a possibility. This is the objection to which my second thread is devoted and this too you either haven't read at all and don't know what you're talking about or you have read it but you're dismissing it without any justification which again just makes you look bad.
3rd Raikage
Member
And everything you just said applies also to Pink Unicorn so really, nothing new here.
Atheism in it's core is the belief in empirical evidence because that's all that matters. The belief in basically anything can be justified with philosophy. So you can debate all you want about flying spaghetti monsters in the context of metaphysics, but leave atheism out of it.
Though when it comes to philosophy there are exceptions among atheists. I have huge respect for Sam Harris actually going out of his way to having an ethical/philosophical debate with William Lane Graig and as that went in Harris's favour it also showed how even the best religious philosophers can't understand when they are being defeated.
Atheism in it's core is the belief in empirical evidence because that's all that matters. The belief in basically anything can be justified with philosophy. So you can debate all you want about flying spaghetti monsters in the context of metaphysics, but leave atheism out of it.
Though when it comes to philosophy there are exceptions among atheists. I have huge respect for Sam Harris actually going out of his way to having an ethical/philosophical debate with William Lane Graig and as that went in Harris's favour it also showed how even the best religious philosophers can't understand when they are being defeated.
You're not even trying anymore.
Congradulations, you don't know what atheism is. What you're describing is called positivism and that's actually a philosophy (one that went bonkers quite a long time ago) so again, the irony is great here.
@bold: You're completely ignorant of how justification works.
Philosophy always was and will be the main line of attack for any respectable atheist. Anyone who claims philosophy is useless for his beliefs has no idea what they're talking about. Harris is no exception here and his main publishing has been on philosophy in fields of ethics, mind and determinism. All general philosophy there. What concerns his debate with Wiliam Lane Craig, WLC was a clear winner there no matter how you look at it. His presentation was superior, his points went hardly even undermined let alone rebuted and Harris wasted an entire speech on an off-topic matter. The only thing he showed was that he can't even beat Craig in matters of ethics which is something WLC is actually the weakest at. So really, if you think Harris won anything there, you're the one who doesn't know who is and isn't defeated.
Our Lord Sasuke
Active member