I was about to say the same thing the moment I saw the picture, even before I read/clicked on the comments. I looked at the picture, chuckled to myself, said 'Beautiful' under my breath, as I realized the picture was a that of a snake swallowing itself tail first. Whether this actually happened or is a doctored photo, the implication with atheism was crystal clear. Kudos to the Triablogue team for visually portraying the connection.
"IT is amusing to notice that many of the moderns, whether sceptics or mystics, have taken as their sign a certain eastern symbol, which is the very symbol of this ultimate nullity. When they wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with its tail in its mouth. There is a startling sarcasm in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal. The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of to-day is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating its tail -- a degraded animal who destroys even himself."
Steve, how could a deceiver deceive so many smart people? I am of course talking about Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking etc.!
"Steve, how could a deceiver deceive so many smart people? I am of course talking about Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking etc.!"
Smart people frequently suffer from intellectual pride. Their strength is their weakness. Ironically, smart people are easily duped. As long as something flatters their egotism.
You identify yourself as a libertarian. Yet many smart folks support the Nannystate. Smart people, dumb politics.
"Now, how exactly is that supposed to be a picture of atheism?"
A philosophical outlook (atheism) which undermines any objective norms (moral, epistemic), which undermines the value of life, &c., consumes itself, and those who adhere to it.
"Steve, how could a deceiver deceive so many smart people? I am of course talking about Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking etc.!"
And what about smart people who are Christians or monotheists, viz. Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz, Newton, Pascal, Dante, Bach, Handel, Euler, Don Page, Donald Knuth, Kurt Gödel, Alvin Plantinga, Fritz Schaefer, Saul Kripke, Hilary Putnam, &c.?
Oh? Like this? So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
What about this? Although the evil we are speaking of is indeed negative, the ultimate end, which is the glory of God, is positive. God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if he decides that the existence of evil will ultimately serve to glorify him, then the decree is by definition good and justified. One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity.
Contrast those views with what atheist Carl Sagan once said in his book Cosmos: that each human being is a unique being in the universe; once gone that person can never be replaced, so don't go running around killing anyone over differences of opinion.
Steve, your comments look like a cheap strawman of atheism. If any view undermines human life, it looks like it's your religion that does.
Unless you can show that those people are atheists somehow?
steve said: Your comment looks more like a popular, ignorant caricature of presuppositionalism.
Looks to me like presuppers do indeed use circular reasoning: Nope, that is not the argument. Again, it is like this: 1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary). 2. Logic exists 3. Therefore God exists.
All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God.
If that is doing presuppositionalism wrong, I suggest you take it up with that Sye TenB guy. His website is proofthatgodexists.org
“Oh? Like this? So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”
i) You haven’t shown how that undermines the value of life. All you’ve done is to cite something you disapprove of. Your citation begs the question.
ii) Also, it’s silly to insinuate that something is wrong because it allegedly has a “brutalizing” effect on the agent. To be a battlefield medic may have a numbing effect on his sensibilities. But it’s a good thing, not an evil thing, to be a battlefield medic.
“Although the evil we are speaking of is indeed negative, the ultimate end, which is the glory of God, is positive. God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if he decides that the existence of evil will ultimately serve to glorify him, then the decree is by definition good and justified. One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity.”
i) I’m not Vincent Cheung, so quoting him doesn’t ipso facto disprove my own position, even if he were mistaken.
ii) In addition, you haven’t shown what is wrong with his position. Quoting something you disapprove of is not an argument. So, once again, you assume what you need to prove.
iii) Because God has intrinsic worth, what God does has intrinsic worth as well because it exemplifies the intrinsic goodness of the Creator.
But Cheung may simply mean that mundane goods are derivative goods. They derive their good from the Creator.
“Contrast those views with what atheist Carl Sagan once said in his book Cosmos: that each human being is a unique being in the universe; once gone that person can never be replaced, so don't go running around killing anyone over differences of opinion.”
Well, that’s a silly argument. That fact that something is unique doesn’t make it precious. Ted Bundy was unique and “irreplaceable.” Good riddance!
“Steve, your comments look like a cheap strawman of atheism.”
Except that I linked to an interview with Michael Ruse, who argues for moral nihilism.
“If any view undermines human life, it looks like it's your religion that does.”
steve ii) In addition, you haven’t shown what is wrong with his position. Quoting something you disapprove of is not an argument. So, once again, you assume what you need to prove. What's wrong with Cheung's position? The killing of billions of people kind of puts a kink in the survival of the human race, doesn't it.
Care to show what's right about Cheung's position?
Again, I gave an example of where it's THEISM that devalued life. Again, you disregard it.
steve iii) Because God has intrinsic worth, what God does has intrinsic worth as well because it exemplifies the intrinsic goodness of the Creator. Given his actions in the bible, that's arguable, to say the least.
Besides, can you SHOW that he has "intrinsic worth"?
Or is that just another assumption without evidence on your part (you know, like your assertion that atheism devalues life).
It's kind of funny how when I bring up something that's bad (killing of babies and women) you asked what's wrong with it: (ie You haven’t shown how that undermines the value of life. All you’ve done is to cite something you disapprove of. Your citation begs the question.)
Aren't you people the ones who value life?
Now...can you explain just how Sye TenB's argument is "virtuously circular" since his conclusion is built right into his premise? That kind of circularity most definately matters to the argument at hand.
“What's wrong with Cheung's position? The killing of billions of people kind of puts a kink in the survival of the human race, doesn't it.”
Well that’s a dumb statement. As long as you have enough humans left over to maintain a replacement rate, that wouldn’t threaten the survival of the human race.
“Care to show what's right about Cheung's position?”
Why? It’s your quote, not mine. It’s incumbent on you to demonstrate the relevance of your quotes. I’m not here to make your argument for you.
“Again, I gave an example of where it's THEISM that devalued life. Again, you disregard it.”
i) Once again, quoting isn’t showing. Try to master that rudimentary distinction. You have yet to demonstrate how the quote proves your point.
ii) And, no, I didn’t disregard it. I exposed your flawed reasoning (i.e. the “brutalizing effect”). You’re the one who disregarded the counterargument.
“Given his actions in the bible, that's arguable, to say the least.”
You say it’s “arguable,” but you don’t present an argument. Your IOUs pay no bills.
“Besides, can you SHOW that he has ‘intrinsic worth’?”
By definition, God is the primary source of all secondary goods.
“Or is that just another assumption without evidence on your part (you know, like your assertion that atheism devalues life).”
i) I realize you’re not overly bright, but for the third time, I linked to a prominent atheist (Michael Ruse) who argues for moral nihilism given naturalistic evolution So, no, it’s not *my* assertion. Get a clue.
ii) And, yes, I can treat the intrinsic worth of God as an operating assumption since you wanted me to comment on Cheung’s statement. Therefore, his assumptions are a given, for you were citing his statement as a given, to make a point about the alleged inconsistency between his statement and the value of life. So that objection would be internal to his assumptions. You weren’t challenging the assumption: you were challenging the coherence of the statement given his assumptions.
The fact that I have to explain these things to you goes to show that you lack the intellectual equipment to debate Christian theism.
“It's kind of funny how when I bring up something that's bad (killing of babies and women) you asked what's wrong with it…”
You haven’t show that it’s bad. You haven’t shown that it’s bad on either Christian grounds or secular grounds. Rather, you have taken for granted the very issue in dispute.
“Aren't you people the ones who value life?”
We distinguish between guilt and innocence. And that, in itself, is a life valuing distinction.
“Now...can you explain just how Sye TenB's argument is "virtuously circular" since his conclusion is built right into his premise? That kind of circularity most definately matters to the argument at hand.”
I already explained to you the flaw in your reasoning. You offer no counterargument since you have no counterargument to offer.
Well, since the larger part of my last reply didn't show up, I'll just have to repost it again.
Good thing I had a copy of it stored here for just such an occasion.
steve i) You haven’t shown how that undermines the value of life. All you’ve done is to cite something you disapprove of. Your citation begs the question. I disaprove of the killing of women and babies. That shows that I, unlike Craig, values their lives, as he has no problem with it.
I'm showing you that it's your fellow theists who, when it's your god ordering it, have no problem with the taking of lives.
Yet ironically, it's you who asserted, without any evidence, that it's atheism that devalues life. I at least, gave an example of the opposite being the case, and brought an example forward of an atheist Carl Sagan, whose views led him to value life. You later dismiss it of course.
steve ii) Also, it’s silly to insinuate that something is wrong because it allegedly has a "brutalizing" effect on the agent. To be a battlefield medic may have a numbing effect on his sensibilities. But it’s a good thing, not an evil thing, to be a battlefield medic. Tell that to Craig. He was the one who was concerned about the "brutalizing" effect on those soldiers. I couldn't care less about them, I care more about their victims.
By the way, being a battlefield medic is kind of the opposite of being a soldier who kills women and children, don't you think?
steve quoting me: "Contrast those views with what atheist Carl Sagan once said in his book Cosmos: that each human being is a unique being in the universe; once gone that person can never be replaced, so don't go running around killing anyone over differences of opinion."
Well, that’s a silly argument. That fact that something is unique doesn’t make it precious. Ok, what would make a life precious in your view? Biblegod telling you so?
steve Ted Bundy was unique and “irreplaceable.” Good riddance! Guess what? You ignored that part where Sagan had said that it's unjustified to kill people over, wait for it: differences of opinion.
Bundy killed people. He did not merely disagree with them, now, did he?
Contrast that with your bible commanding blasphemers, witches, "Canaanites" (including babies) etc to be put to death.
Besides, doesn't your own god value every human life, even Bundy? "He so loved the world etc etc".
If that's not what you think then guess what? If your god didn't intend/want for everyone to go into heaven then HE'S the one who first "devalued" life, not us.
Now, here's where you get snakey. You bring up one guy (Micheal Ruse), and you apply what he said to ALL of atheism.
Yet, when I quoted Vincent Cheung and William Craig as examples of how your religion devalues life, all of a sudden, it doesn't apply, remember?
steve i) I’m not Vincent Cheung, so quoting him doesn’t ipso facto disprove my own position, even if he were mistaken.
So, if YOU quote one person who says something that makes "atheism" look bad, it CAN be used, but if I quote a fellow xian of yours saying something that makes your religion look bad, it CAN'T be used?
Ruse doesn't speak for atheists any more than you claim Cheung doesn't speak for you.
Consistent, eh?
By the way, about Ruse who "argues for moral nihilism": This part of the program has gone very smoothly, with empirical researchers showing in great detail how and why morality is a terrific adaptation for social animals like us humans.
“I disaprove of the killing of women and babies. That shows that I, unlike Craig, values their lives, as he has no problem with it.”
What you subjectively value or disapprove of does nothing to establish objective values. A 10-year-old sociopath may value vivisecting the neighborhood cats. You may disapprove of his conduct, but he disapproves of your disapproval.
“I'm showing you that it's your fellow theists who, when it's your god ordering it, have no problem with the taking of lives. Yet ironically, it's you who asserted, without any evidence, that it's atheism that devalues life.”
To take the life of a murderer upholds the value of life. Innocent life.
“I at least, gave an example of the opposite being the case, and brought an example forward of an atheist Carl Sagan, whose views led him to value life. You later dismiss it of course.”
No. I didn’t “dismiss” it. I presented a counterargument, for which you have no rejoinder.
“Tell that to Craig.”
I don’t have to tell anything to Craig. I’m not Craig. If you have a beef with Craig, email him your objections.
Citing Craig would only be relevant if I had reason to agree with him.
“By the way, being a battlefield medic is kind of the opposite of being a soldier who kills women and children, don't you think?”
i) Now you’re changing the subject. That’s a backdoor admission that your original argument failed.
ii) There are situations in which women and children function as human shields, behind which the enemy fires rounds. In that situation, a soldier may be forced to shoot the human shields to defend himself or his comrades. But he’s not to blame. The enemy put him in that situation.
There are moral complexities which you simplemindedly ignore.
“Ok, what would make a life precious in your view? Biblegod telling you so?”
Once again, you’re changing the subject. That’s a backdoor admission that you lost the original argument.
“Guess what? You ignored that part where Sagan had said that it's unjustified to kill people over, wait for it: differences of opinion. Bundy killed people. He did not merely disagree with them, now, did he?”
Which is irrelevant to Sagan’s uniqueness argument.
“Contrast that with your bible commanding blasphemers, witches, Canaanites’ (including babies) etc to be put to death.”
God didn’t order the execution of the Canaanites over differences of opinion.
Cont. “Besides, doesn't your own god value every human life, even Bundy? ‘He so loved the world etc etc’. If that's not what you think then guess what? If your god didn't intend/want for everyone to go into heaven then HE'S the one who first "devalued" life, not us.”
Once again, thanks for illustrating the simpleminded mentality of the village atheist. To punish the wicked is life-affirming. Try to keep more than one idea in your head at a time. It may be hard for you at first. It takes practice.
“Now, here's where you get snakey. You bring up one guy (Micheal Ruse), and you apply what he said to ALL of atheism.”
It applies to all atheists because he presents a solid argument, on atheistic assumptions, that naturalistic evolution entails moral nihilism. The issue is not how many atheists present an argument, but the quality of the argument.
“Yet, when I quoted Vincent Cheung and William Craig as examples of how your religion devalues life, all of a sudden, it doesn't apply, remember?”
Which is only as good as their argument. But I realize that you lack the intellectual aptitude to grasp that elementary distinction.
“So, if YOU quote one person who says something that makes "atheism" look bad, it CAN be used, but if I quote a fellow xian of yours saying something that makes your religion look bad, it CAN'T be used? Ruse doesn't speak for atheists any more than you claim Cheung doesn't speak for you. Consistent, eh?”
I understand that you’re struggling. You need help learning how to think clearly, so let me take you by the hand and walk you through the process. When I cite Ruse, that’s not an appeal to authority. Rather, I cite him because he presents a good argument for his position. As long as his argument is sound, he speaks for all atheists. That’s called a logical implication.
You must show that Craig or Cheung had done the same thing. Anything else I can help you with?
“Yeah, sounds like total "nihilism" to me, uh huh!”
A successful adaptation doesn’t make it objectively moral, as Ruse himself explains.
Wow! Wow!
ReplyDeleteThat is just an amazingly powerful graphic of what atheism is.
Made all the more powerful when recalling the story of the serpent in the Garden of Eden.
That is a killer picture.
I was about to say the same thing the moment I saw the picture, even before I read/clicked on the comments. I looked at the picture, chuckled to myself, said 'Beautiful' under my breath, as I realized the picture was a that of a snake swallowing itself tail first. Whether this actually happened or is a doctored photo, the implication with atheism was crystal clear. Kudos to the Triablogue team for visually portraying the connection.
ReplyDelete"IT is amusing to notice that many of the moderns, whether sceptics or mystics, have taken as their sign a certain eastern symbol, which is the very symbol of this ultimate nullity. When they wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with its tail in its mouth. There is a startling sarcasm in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal. The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of to-day is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating its tail -- a degraded animal who destroys even himself."
ReplyDeleteChesterton, 'Orthodoxy.'
Steve, how could a deceiver deceive so many smart people? I am of course talking about Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking etc.!
ReplyDeleteI am just asking.
"Smart" people are often the easiest to deceive. Ask any politician.
ReplyDeleteLooks more like a pictoral representation of xian apologetic reasoning of the Greg Bahnsen variety (ie: Presupositionalism).
ReplyDeleteNow, how exactly is that supposed to be a picture of atheism?
11-YEAR OLD ATHEIST-LIBERTARIAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, how could a deceiver deceive so many smart people? I am of course talking about Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking etc.!"
Smart people frequently suffer from intellectual pride. Their strength is their weakness. Ironically, smart people are easily duped. As long as something flatters their egotism.
You identify yourself as a libertarian. Yet many smart folks support the Nannystate. Smart people, dumb politics.
Reynold said...
ReplyDelete"Now, how exactly is that supposed to be a picture of atheism?"
A philosophical outlook (atheism) which undermines any objective norms (moral, epistemic), which undermines the value of life, &c., consumes itself, and those who adhere to it.
REYNOLD SAID:
ReplyDelete"Looks more like a pictoral representation of xian apologetic reasoning of the Greg Bahnsen variety (ie: Presupositionalism)."
Your comment looks more like a popular, ignorant caricature of presuppositionalism.
11-YEAR OLD ATHEIST-LIBERTARIAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, how could a deceiver deceive so many smart people? I am of course talking about Benjamin Franklin, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking etc.!"
And what about smart people who are Christians or monotheists, viz. Augustine, Aquinas, Leibniz, Newton, Pascal, Dante, Bach, Handel, Euler, Don Page, Donald Knuth, Kurt Gödel, Alvin Plantinga, Fritz Schaefer, Saul Kripke, Hilary Putnam, &c.?
steve said, about atheism:
ReplyDelete...which undermines the value of life...
Oh? Like this?
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
What about this?
Although the evil we are speaking of is indeed negative, the ultimate end, which is the glory of God, is positive. God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if he decides that the existence of evil will ultimately serve to glorify him, then the decree is by definition good and justified. One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity.
Contrast those views with what atheist Carl Sagan once said in his book Cosmos: that each human being is a unique being in the universe; once gone that person can never be replaced, so don't go running around killing anyone over differences of opinion.
Steve, your comments look like a cheap strawman of atheism. If any view undermines human life, it looks like it's your religion that does.
Unless you can show that those people are atheists somehow?
steve said:
ReplyDeleteYour comment looks more like a popular, ignorant caricature of presuppositionalism.
Looks to me like presuppers do indeed use circular reasoning:
Nope, that is not the argument. Again, it is like this:
1. God is the necessary precondition for logic (by the impossiblity of the contrary).
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore God exists.
All that anyone would have to do to refute me is to demonstrate how the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic can exist without God.
If that is doing presuppositionalism wrong, I suggest you take it up with that Sye TenB guy. His website is proofthatgodexists.org
REYNOLD SAID:
ReplyDelete“Oh? Like this? So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.”
i) You haven’t shown how that undermines the value of life. All you’ve done is to cite something you disapprove of. Your citation begs the question.
ii) Also, it’s silly to insinuate that something is wrong because it allegedly has a “brutalizing” effect on the agent. To be a battlefield medic may have a numbing effect on his sensibilities. But it’s a good thing, not an evil thing, to be a battlefield medic.
“Although the evil we are speaking of is indeed negative, the ultimate end, which is the glory of God, is positive. God is the only one who possesses intrinsic worth, and if he decides that the existence of evil will ultimately serve to glorify him, then the decree is by definition good and justified. One who thinks that God's glory is not worth the death and suffering of billions of people has too high an opinion of himself and humanity.”
i) I’m not Vincent Cheung, so quoting him doesn’t ipso facto disprove my own position, even if he were mistaken.
ii) In addition, you haven’t shown what is wrong with his position. Quoting something you disapprove of is not an argument. So, once again, you assume what you need to prove.
iii) Because God has intrinsic worth, what God does has intrinsic worth as well because it exemplifies the intrinsic goodness of the Creator.
But Cheung may simply mean that mundane goods are derivative goods. They derive their good from the Creator.
“Contrast those views with what atheist Carl Sagan once said in his book Cosmos: that each human being is a unique being in the universe; once gone that person can never be replaced, so don't go running around killing anyone over differences of opinion.”
Well, that’s a silly argument. That fact that something is unique doesn’t make it precious. Ted Bundy was unique and “irreplaceable.” Good riddance!
“Steve, your comments look like a cheap strawman of atheism.”
Except that I linked to an interview with Michael Ruse, who argues for moral nihilism.
“If any view undermines human life, it looks like it's your religion that does.”
“Looks like” is not an argument.
Reynold said...
ReplyDelete“Looks to me like presuppers do indeed use circular reasoning.”
You’re too naïve to know the difference between vicious and virtuous circularity. A circular argument (i.e. syllogism) is logically fallacious.
Likewise, empiricism is circular, but that isn’t a logical fallacy.
steve
ReplyDeleteii) In addition, you haven’t shown what is wrong with his position. Quoting something you disapprove of is not an argument. So, once again, you assume what you need to prove.
What's wrong with Cheung's position? The killing of billions of people kind of puts a kink in the survival of the human race, doesn't it.
Care to show what's right about Cheung's position?
Again, I gave an example of where it's THEISM that devalued life. Again, you disregard it.
steve
iii) Because God has intrinsic worth, what God does has intrinsic worth as well because it exemplifies the intrinsic goodness of the Creator.
Given his actions in the bible, that's arguable, to say the least.
Besides, can you SHOW that he has "intrinsic worth"?
Or is that just another assumption without evidence on your part (you know, like your assertion that atheism devalues life).
It's kind of funny how when I bring up something that's bad (killing of babies and women) you asked what's wrong with it: (ie You haven’t shown how that undermines the value of life. All you’ve done is to cite something you disapprove of. Your citation begs the question.)
Aren't you people the ones who value life?
Now...can you explain just how Sye TenB's argument is "virtuously circular" since his conclusion is built right into his premise? That kind of circularity most definately matters to the argument at hand.
REYNOLD SAID:
ReplyDelete“What's wrong with Cheung's position? The killing of billions of people kind of puts a kink in the survival of the human race, doesn't it.”
Well that’s a dumb statement. As long as you have enough humans left over to maintain a replacement rate, that wouldn’t threaten the survival of the human race.
“Care to show what's right about Cheung's position?”
Why? It’s your quote, not mine. It’s incumbent on you to demonstrate the relevance of your quotes. I’m not here to make your argument for you.
“Again, I gave an example of where it's THEISM that devalued life. Again, you disregard it.”
i) Once again, quoting isn’t showing. Try to master that rudimentary distinction. You have yet to demonstrate how the quote proves your point.
ii) And, no, I didn’t disregard it. I exposed your flawed reasoning (i.e. the “brutalizing effect”). You’re the one who disregarded the counterargument.
“Given his actions in the bible, that's arguable, to say the least.”
You say it’s “arguable,” but you don’t present an argument. Your IOUs pay no bills.
“Besides, can you SHOW that he has ‘intrinsic worth’?”
By definition, God is the primary source of all secondary goods.
“Or is that just another assumption without evidence on your part (you know, like your assertion that atheism devalues life).”
i) I realize you’re not overly bright, but for the third time, I linked to a prominent atheist (Michael Ruse) who argues for moral nihilism given naturalistic evolution So, no, it’s not *my* assertion. Get a clue.
ii) And, yes, I can treat the intrinsic worth of God as an operating assumption since you wanted me to comment on Cheung’s statement. Therefore, his assumptions are a given, for you were citing his statement as a given, to make a point about the alleged inconsistency between his statement and the value of life. So that objection would be internal to his assumptions. You weren’t challenging the assumption: you were challenging the coherence of the statement given his assumptions.
The fact that I have to explain these things to you goes to show that you lack the intellectual equipment to debate Christian theism.
“It's kind of funny how when I bring up something that's bad (killing of babies and women) you asked what's wrong with it…”
You haven’t show that it’s bad. You haven’t shown that it’s bad on either Christian grounds or secular grounds. Rather, you have taken for granted the very issue in dispute.
“Aren't you people the ones who value life?”
We distinguish between guilt and innocence. And that, in itself, is a life valuing distinction.
“Now...can you explain just how Sye TenB's argument is "virtuously circular" since his conclusion is built right into his premise? That kind of circularity most definately matters to the argument at hand.”
I already explained to you the flaw in your reasoning. You offer no counterargument since you have no counterargument to offer.
Well, since the larger part of my last reply didn't show up, I'll just have to repost it again.
ReplyDeleteGood thing I had a copy of it stored here for just such an occasion.
steve
i) You haven’t shown how that undermines the value of life. All you’ve done is to cite something you disapprove of. Your citation begs the question.
I disaprove of the killing of women and babies. That shows that I, unlike Craig, values their lives, as he has no problem with it.
I'm showing you that it's your fellow theists who, when it's your god ordering it, have no problem with the taking of lives.
Yet ironically, it's you who asserted, without any evidence, that it's atheism that devalues life. I at least, gave an example of the opposite being the case, and brought an example forward of an atheist Carl Sagan, whose views led him to value life. You later dismiss it of course.
steve
ii) Also, it’s silly to insinuate that something is wrong because it allegedly has a "brutalizing" effect on the agent. To be a battlefield medic may have a numbing effect on his sensibilities. But it’s a good thing, not an evil thing, to be a battlefield medic.
Tell that to Craig. He was the one who was concerned about the "brutalizing" effect on those soldiers. I couldn't care less about them, I care more about their victims.
By the way, being a battlefield medic is kind of the opposite of being a soldier who kills women and children, don't you think?
steve quoting me:
"Contrast those views with what atheist Carl Sagan once said in his book Cosmos: that each human being is a unique being in the universe; once gone that person can never be replaced, so don't go running around killing anyone over differences of opinion."
Well, that’s a silly argument. That fact that something is unique doesn’t make it precious.
Ok, what would make a life precious in your view? Biblegod telling you so?
steve
Ted Bundy was unique and “irreplaceable.” Good riddance!
Guess what? You ignored that part where Sagan had said that it's unjustified to kill people over, wait for it: differences of opinion.
Bundy killed people. He did not merely disagree with them, now, did he?
Contrast that with your bible commanding blasphemers, witches, "Canaanites" (including babies) etc to be put to death.
Besides, doesn't your own god value every human life, even Bundy? "He so loved the world etc etc".
If that's not what you think then guess what? If your god didn't intend/want for everyone to go into heaven then HE'S the one who first "devalued" life, not us.
Now, here's where you get snakey. You bring up one guy (Micheal Ruse), and you apply what he said to ALL of atheism.
Yet, when I quoted Vincent Cheung and William Craig as examples of how your religion devalues life, all of a sudden, it doesn't apply, remember?
steve
i) I’m not Vincent Cheung, so quoting him doesn’t ipso facto disprove my own position, even if he were mistaken.
So, if YOU quote one person who says something that makes "atheism" look bad, it CAN be used, but if I quote a fellow xian of yours saying something that makes your religion look bad, it CAN'T be used?
Ruse doesn't speak for atheists any more than you claim Cheung doesn't speak for you.
Consistent, eh?
By the way, about Ruse who "argues for moral nihilism":
This part of the program has gone very smoothly, with empirical researchers showing in great detail how and why morality is a terrific adaptation for social animals like us humans.
Yeah, sounds like total "nihilism" to me, uh huh!
REYNOLD SAID:
ReplyDelete“I disaprove of the killing of women and babies. That shows that I, unlike Craig, values their lives, as he has no problem with it.”
What you subjectively value or disapprove of does nothing to establish objective values. A 10-year-old sociopath may value vivisecting the neighborhood cats. You may disapprove of his conduct, but he disapproves of your disapproval.
“I'm showing you that it's your fellow theists who, when it's your god ordering it, have no problem with the taking of lives. Yet ironically, it's you who asserted, without any evidence, that it's atheism that devalues life.”
To take the life of a murderer upholds the value of life. Innocent life.
“I at least, gave an example of the opposite being the case, and brought an example forward of an atheist Carl Sagan, whose views led him to value life. You later dismiss it of course.”
No. I didn’t “dismiss” it. I presented a counterargument, for which you have no rejoinder.
“Tell that to Craig.”
I don’t have to tell anything to Craig. I’m not Craig. If you have a beef with Craig, email him your objections.
Citing Craig would only be relevant if I had reason to agree with him.
“By the way, being a battlefield medic is kind of the opposite of being a soldier who kills women and children, don't you think?”
i) Now you’re changing the subject. That’s a backdoor admission that your original argument failed.
ii) There are situations in which women and children function as human shields, behind which the enemy fires rounds. In that situation, a soldier may be forced to shoot the human shields to defend himself or his comrades. But he’s not to blame. The enemy put him in that situation.
There are moral complexities which you simplemindedly ignore.
“Ok, what would make a life precious in your view? Biblegod telling you so?”
Once again, you’re changing the subject. That’s a backdoor admission that you lost the original argument.
“Guess what? You ignored that part where Sagan had said that it's unjustified to kill people over, wait for it: differences of opinion. Bundy killed people. He did not merely disagree with them, now, did he?”
Which is irrelevant to Sagan’s uniqueness argument.
“Contrast that with your bible commanding blasphemers, witches, Canaanites’ (including babies) etc to be put to death.”
God didn’t order the execution of the Canaanites over differences of opinion.
Cont. “Besides, doesn't your own god value every human life, even Bundy? ‘He so loved the world etc etc’. If that's not what you think then guess what? If your god didn't intend/want for everyone to go into heaven then HE'S the one who first "devalued" life, not us.”
ReplyDeleteOnce again, thanks for illustrating the simpleminded mentality of the village atheist. To punish the wicked is life-affirming. Try to keep more than one idea in your head at a time. It may be hard for you at first. It takes practice.
“Now, here's where you get snakey. You bring up one guy (Micheal Ruse), and you apply what he said to ALL of atheism.”
It applies to all atheists because he presents a solid argument, on atheistic assumptions, that naturalistic evolution entails moral nihilism. The issue is not how many atheists present an argument, but the quality of the argument.
“Yet, when I quoted Vincent Cheung and William Craig as examples of how your religion devalues life, all of a sudden, it doesn't apply, remember?”
Which is only as good as their argument. But I realize that you lack the intellectual aptitude to grasp that elementary distinction.
“So, if YOU quote one person who says something that makes "atheism" look bad, it CAN be used, but if I quote a fellow xian of yours saying something that makes your religion look bad, it CAN'T be used? Ruse doesn't speak for atheists any more than you claim Cheung doesn't speak for you. Consistent, eh?”
I understand that you’re struggling. You need help learning how to think clearly, so let me take you by the hand and walk you through the process. When I cite Ruse, that’s not an appeal to authority. Rather, I cite him because he presents a good argument for his position. As long as his argument is sound, he speaks for all atheists. That’s called a logical implication.
You must show that Craig or Cheung had done the same thing. Anything else I can help you with?
“Yeah, sounds like total "nihilism" to me, uh huh!”
A successful adaptation doesn’t make it objectively moral, as Ruse himself explains.