Hitchens on Islam

[guyver79]

I don't think so. Final cause (intention/purpose) is usually a requirement of Christian morality. God has a 'plan', a 'purpose' for the universe and you specifically (although you won't know what it is). You become moral when your plan lines up with 'Gods plan'. Of course this can't provide morality because 1) you don't get to know Gods plan and 2) God has been 'doing people' for a long time now, and from the Christian perspective the 'perfect person' already happened (Jesus). So there could literally be no purpose for you, specifically and existentially.

They really don't seem to like the idea of being moral if being itself has no specific purpose.

I think shelly kagan touched upon this in the Q&A in his debate with Ol' two citations, he asked billy bob something about "is suffering meaningless if it doesn't have some cosmic significance", if I'm remembering it correctly, wlc was a bit stumped by that.

(If I've got that wrong sorry in advance been a lil while since I've seen it)

[homicidal_misc]

I don't think so. Final cause (intention/purpose) is usually a requirement of Christian morality. God has a 'plan', a 'purpose' for the universe and you specifically (although you won't know what it is).

It isn't a requirement just for christian morality. It is for morality, period.

You become moral when your plan lines up with 'Gods plan'. Of course this can't provide morality because 1) you don't get to know Gods plan and 2) God has been 'doing people' for a long time now, and from the Christian perspective the 'perfect person' already happened (Jesus). So there could literally be no purpose for you, specifically and existentially.

There is nothing to really address here. the day you can demonstrate you have an elementary understanding of christian doctrine/theology, the world will end.

They really don't seem to like the idea of being moral if being itself has no specific purpose.

It's not about "not liking." It simply isn't coherent. But go ahead and "self-reflect" yourself into thinking murder is morally wrong.

[homicidal_misc]

I think shelly kagan touched upon this in the Q&A in his debate with Ol' two citations, he asked billy bob something about "is suffering meaningless if it doesn't have some cosmic significance", if I'm remembering it correctly, wlc was a bit stumped by that.

(If I've got that wrong sorry in advance been a lil while since I've seen it)

I doubt there was anything in that debate pertaining to formal/final causality in which Craig had trouble with considering WLC adheres to divine command theory, which you will never see me, Athanasius, lasher, ontop etc reference in any argument pertaining to Thomism. However, it doesn't seem like that stops any of you guys from mindlessly and without foundation forcing it into our views and strawmanning us.

[ODBM]

No.

Categorical and philosophical difference, accepted and appreciated by atheist philosophers too.

Example-

"How old is this fossil?"

"Why did World War II begin?"

"Why should I drive on the right side of the road?"

"Does language reflect reality as it is?"

"Why must we put i before e, except after c?"

"Why do the sums of two squares of the sides of a right angled triangle equal the square of the remaining side?"

"What constitutes an object? What does it mean to be a cause? Is reality substances or events?"

All valid and meaningful questions. All categorically different. Adherence to scientism is a self-defeating philosophy. dealwithit.jpg.

These questions can all be answered with data we can measure, specifically define, and justify to a sufficient degree.

I asked if there was anything that had ever been verified by means other than empiricism, and it looks like neither you nor homicidal_misc can come up with an example of such a thing. This is one very good reason for me to stick with my consistent form of discerning reality from fiction, despite the fact that a small minority of theists think it's stupid.

[GreatOldOne]

I think shelly kagan touched upon this in the Q&A in his debate with Ol' two citations, he asked billy bob something about "is suffering meaningless if it doesn't have some cosmic significance", if I'm remembering it correctly, wlc was a bit stumped by that.

(If I've got that wrong sorry in advance been a lil while since I've seen it)

Interesting. I believe from their perspective it would be meaningless.

Of course the reason why that is a disturbing thought is because we know suffering is bad because of the quality of the experience. Without 'cosmic significance', the Christian (or Muslim) narrative for existence cannot adequately deal with suffering. This paints you into the uncomfortable corner where experience has no intrinsic value and you're instead relying on hope to provide self-delusion that suffering is God's plan and with good purpose (suffering is 'morally justified, reason unspecified').

There is nothing to really address here.

That's correct. I wasn't addressing you.

[Athanasius90]

These questions can all be answered with data we can measure, specifically .

A lot of those questions werent empirical or answerable with quantitative methods.

but you were the one advocating empiricism. Its your burden to defend that.

[ODBM]

A lot of those questions werent empirical or answerable with quantitative methods.

but you were the one advocating empiricism. Its your burden to defend that.

Be careful when cutting parts of a quote or you'll skew the author's meaning. But to be fair, that was probably your intention.

Here's what I actually said.
"These questions can all be answered with data we can measure, specifically define, and justify to a sufficient degree."

Which of your questions do you want me to defend?

[CXC3000]

One for the vile Islamophobes :

"Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it)."

(9:32)

------

Try as you might; you'll never destroy the Faith. The Lord is the Protector of His Word.

All your (wasted) words and actions won't make a shred of difference

[GreatOldOne]

Allah sounds a lot like an invisible person in that quote...considering his 'allowances'.

But since you mentioned 'His light should be perfected' that actually is relevant to the video in the OP. So what's going on with 'the perfect message' being only in Arabic? Wouldn't it be 'more perfect' if it was perfect in every possible language?

And why does so much of the Qu'ran seem to be pointing out that 'people will not believe this' and 'people who will not believe this are bad' and 'people who will not believe this are going to be in trouble'? That seems highly suspicious. Those are the kinds of sentiments you want to include in a message which isn't actually true in order to feign superiority (just from a rhetorical, human psychology, communications standpoint).

[Harbinger]

Allah sounds a lot like an invisible person in that quote...considering his 'allowances'.

But since you mentioned 'his light should be perfected' that actually is relevant to the video in the OP. So what's going on with 'the perfect message' being only
in Arabic? Wouldn't it be 'more perfect' if it was perfect in every possible language?

islamophobe! he said "perfect" NOT "more perfect"

[anxietybrah]

Being a sworn radical atheist is being ignorant of the massively overwhelming nature of the universe.

Believing in some kind of man made superstition of one God or Gods is equally ignorant.

I strongly believe there are forces at play in the universe which would be characterized as supernatural. You have to be a complete moron to willfully ignore the spiritual side of life only to spite some christians (never jews).

[ODBM]

Being a sworn radical atheist

Do you actually know of anyone who fits into this category?

[Athanasius90]

Be careful when cutting parts of a quote or you'll skew the author's meaning. But to be fair, that was probably your intention.

Here's what I actually said.
"These questions can all be answered with data we can measure, specifically define, and justify to a sufficient degree."

Which of your questions do you want me to defend?

You are advocating an epistemic scientism--that sciences or quantitative measurements are the only way to truth. Without a defense of this, it is question begging.

Plus, a lot of those questions were explicitly philosophical in nature.

Do you actually know of anyone who fits into this category?

I wouldnt call them radical, but plenty of scholars argue theism is incoherent, meaningless, or useless to some other degree. Proving something incoherent is the strongest evidence you can provide against something.

[ODBM]

You are advocating an epistemic scientism--that sciences or quantitative measurements are the only way to truth. Without a defense of this, it is question begging.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that we are only justified in believing things that can be verified through epistemic methods.

Can you give me an example of anything that has ever been verified in another way?

[Athanasius90]

Not quite. What I'm saying is that we are only justified in believing things that can be verified through epistemic methods.

Can you give me an example of anything that has ever been verified in another way?

It's not my burden here. You need to defend the bolded.

By epistemic did you mean 'empirical'? I agree we need some epistemic methods to have any knowledge at all, but I deny there is any one unequivocal "best" method which excludes all others.

[GreatOldOne]

It's not my burden here. You need to defend the bolded.

By epistemic did you mean 'empirical'? I agree we need some epistemic methods to have any knowledge at all, but I deny there is any one unequivocal "best" method which excludes all others.

Most likely you are an epistemic method (well empirical method).

I wouldn't bash empiricism lol.

Not that you are. But you're shortchanging it...because...why?

What's left out?

Isn't it the 'quality' stuff?

[ODBM]

It's not my burden here. You need to defend the bolded.

By epistemic did you mean 'empirical'? I agree we need some epistemic methods to have any knowledge at all, but I deny there is any one unequivocal "best" method which excludes all others.

Yes, I meant empirical. Everything I know of has been verified through empiricism; nothing I know of has been verified by other means. If you're proposing that another means is valid, then you should provide an example of something that has been verified via those means.

[anthonymilkins]

I'm still lost on how God is anything more than just an idea. Written and shared.

His commandments are most certainly just that - and thus no different to any other shared idea or ideal.

[GreatOldOne]

I'm still lost on how God is anything more than just an idea. Written and shared.

His commandments are most certainly just that - and thus no different to any other shared idea or ideal.

You're not willing to accept the word of a burning bush full stop?

Loosely defined...God would be at least, 'the metaphysical principles supporting everything'. So you have 'The Great Whatever' at all times as God, for 'whatever' that is worth.

[Athanasius90]

You're not willing to accept the word of a burning bush full stop?

Loosely defined...God would be at least, 'the metaphysical principles supporting everything'. So you have 'The Great Whatever' at all times as God, for 'whatever' that is worth.

uh what?

[GreatOldOne]

uh what?

Of course all the pretense of 'divine command theory' and all that...well crap...terminates in the burning bush idea. There God is. Giving the commands. The burning bush.

Again this is stuff you just don't have internalized because you're not actually Christian but just tipping your toes in the Holy Water because of some reason who knows why.

But the rest of that post is a simple description of language use regarding the 'God' keyword.

[Athanasius90]

Of course all the pretense of 'divine command theory' and all that...well crap...terminates in the burning bush idea. There God is. Giving the commands. The burning bush.

Again this is stuff you just don't have internalized because you're not actually Christian but just tipping your toes in the Holy Water because of some reason who knows why.

But the rest of that post is a simple description of language use regarding the 'God' keyword.

no, its just you making no sense as per usual

[GreatOldOne]

no, its just you making no sense as per usual

The more you (pretend to) become Christian I think you'll find that outside voices make less and less sense.

That's just how it works.

[Athanasius90]

The more you (pretend to) become Christian I think you'll find that outside voices make less and less sense.

That's just how it works.

My Christianity is fine thanks. The problem is with you.

[ODBM]

If you're proposing that another means is valid, then you should provide an example of something that has been verified via those means.

Just so we're all clear, Myriad, you have no answer to this?

[Athanasius90]

I still havent seen a positive argument for empiricism. Not my burden. A positive argument for empiricism is not shifting the burden on to me, because I never claimed one method was superior.

Also, try not to act like a child.

[GreatOldOne]

My Christianity is fine thanks. The problem is with you.

It's not fine, actually. You simply don't understand Christianity (you're not left out. don't feel bad).

The way Christianity works is like this.

God creates man.
Man sins and separates from God.
Jesus saves (redeems) mankind and mankind can now become in harmony with God.

You're far to smart to believe there was ever an Adam and Eve or any reasonable analogue which extends beyond poetry. So that does away with the sin and separation from God. So then Jesus can do whatever he does (in terms of miracles/resurrection/whatever) but it's not redeeming you because there was no problem to begin with.

Nobody was sick. Nobody was saved. There was no savior. Leaving Christianity untenable.

[ODBM]

I still havent seen a positive argument for empiricism. Not my burden. A positive argument for empiricism is not shifting the burden on to me, because I never claimed one method was superior.

Also, try not to act like a child.

I'll take that as a no.

If empiricism is not the only way we have to evaluate the universe we inhabit, then why is it so hard for you to give me one example of something verified without it?

[Athanasius90]

I'll take that as a no.

If empiricism is not the only way we have to evaluate the universe we inhabit, then why is it so hard for you to give me one example of something verified without it?

You're the one claiming it's the only way to arrive at truth, hence, your burden. You need to give an argument for this. I'm simply waiting for your argument.

[ODBM]

Where did I claim that? What I said is that empiricism is the most reliable means by which we can evaluate the universe we inhabit. As a matter of fact, it is currently the only means we have.

Let me be blunt here. My position is that I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible. Since everything in this world that I am aware of has been ascertained by means of empirical observation, I place a great deal of confidence in it. It may not be the only way of evaluating this world, but it is currently one which has not failed us. When you propose to me that the existence of your creator is beyond the scope of empirical observation, that is a red flag that something isn't quite right. If you are asserting that the existence of this being can be verified in some other way than what I currently put my confidence in, then I am asking you for an example of any other thing which has been verified in this way that you're trying to sell me.

If you are unable to do that, then I have no justification for believing you.

Now, all of what I just said is pointless if your creator's existence is subject to empirical observation, demonstration and measurement as is everything else we know of. Is it?

By the way, this is the sort of thing I was referring to earlier when I said you don't remain intellectually honest. I ask you for an example of something that has been verified with this secondary, non-empirical means of evaluation, and we both know you know of no such thing. So instead of conceding that point, you deflect and start demanding that I defend a claim I never made.