Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty  thanks again for responding. it's true my response is long. it was long because I responded to everything you said. I tried to be thorough. I can appreciate your idea to set up a standard, and for the standard to be met, in the interest of brevity and concision. however, your standard isn't the only way in which the topic may be argued. |
"My standard" is merely to try and identify and list all of the arguments I believe you are presenting, and if I miss any that you feel are relevant to the discussion I invite you to point them out. I believe I too had been thorough in my last post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty If you'd like to debate this topic with me, you're going to need to address everything I say (except, of course, for some things like the Jehovah's Witness story). explain, in every case, why my arguments are or are not valid. |
"Everything you say... except of course" isn't much of a standard to follow. A point by point rebuttal will get redunant, especially when you're repeating arguments and making a 4 post rebuttal to my every one.
I do not wish to, nor have the time for 16 page responses when I can easily reply in a single page, unless of course you find that I missed an important argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty in God is Not Great, Hitchens talks about the New Testament. IMO, he says a few things about the NT which reveal a misunderstanding about it. I mentioned those. I took the time to explain them. in the Harris video you posted the link to, Harris reveals a misunderstanding of the Christian religion when he quotes Leviticus and misinterprets Luke 19:27. I quoted Dawkins several times making generalizations about all religious believers. you neglected to address anything I said about any of these things. I took the time to write these things. you dismiss them, because you feel that it didn't meet your standard. In each of these cases, it doesn't quite matter what my particular beliefs are, does it? |
I did not "dismiss" them, and if you feel that these represent examples of a NA misunderstanding religion; I shall address them:
On Luke 19:27:
You stated that he misinterpreted it, that he did not know that it was part of a parable of a wicked king. In both of his books he explains that he does understand that it is a parable clearly, and that it is his interpretation, as well as most of the Biblical scholars that he debates and engages with that Jesus is the king in that parable.
If your interpretation is different, I would love to hear it, but then again this is another case of your arrogantly telling most Christians that they do not understand Christianity; Hence why I felt that I already addressed this point.
On Dawkin's alleged generalizations:
1. Any truth claim about reality is a scientific hypothesis.
2. You made up the absolute that he ever claimed that it ALWAYS teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding, he only stated that it does, which is true. Would you like examples?
3. He claims that theology is no study at all, because any moral, ethical, economic, philosophical truth that is of any utility in theology has been plaigarized from other previous religions, are all bronze age in value, and have been stated more concisely in various secular literature (for example Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged.)
None of these quotes were as absolute as you made them out to be, and all of them are true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty If you believe I have taken any remarks out of context, you are going to need to explain precisely how. |
Very well, In post #4:
- You quoted Hitchens saying that religion is a means of control as if he said it as an absolute, in the context of the chapter he goes on to explain the nature that people use
organized religion (as opposed to your nuanced "spirituality")
in various civilizations as a means of control, which was true. Your interpreation of this as an absolute for all forms of religion, and all uses of the definition including your own is part of the reason that I said the use of the word is problematic.
You'll take one of the NA's talking about a kind of religion, and mistakenly apply it to your own or another and then claim that they don't understand religion.
- You quoted an argument Hitchens made about Fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, and was upset that it did not address moderate Christianity; Which it was never intended to do.
- You quote Sam claiming that religion is a source of violence, and claim that anyone who things that it is one doesn't understand human nature. This argument of yours is proven false if a SINGLE act of violence perpetrated for religious reasons ever occurs; which I can cite countless examples of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty you can bunch things together if you like, in order to make it easier. but it doesn't make sense for you to not address the arguments I make which don't seem to get at this thing the way you expect them to. |
I do not believe I have left any arguments unaddressed, now will you respond to my counter-post? (As well as this one)
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty It is probably true that I need to explain a little bit more about what I believe. thanks for asking. I will work on that. |
Please do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty I did address it when I pointed out that it was a nonanswer. it's a fair point. but Dawkins discredits all belief. I don't. |
1. When did you say it was a non-answer, since I must have missed it.
2. How is that a "nonanswer" and also a fair point?
3. What do you mean he discredits all belief? He discredits all faith based belief, beliefs without evidence, or illogical/irrational ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Must the gospels be taken literally or not at all? |
No, and he goes on to answer religious moderate claims in Chapter 4 "A note on Health, to which religions can be hazardous." Again, I did not answer this because you were demonstrating a lack of knowledge on their arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Do the NA's confuse religions with worldviews? |
No, they address all forms of religion, its you who denies the majority of religionist worldviews for your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty is there a universal definition of "religion?" |
No, and EACH of the NA's explain how the word is problematic due to its various ambiguous meanings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty do doors leading out of scriptural literalism NEVER open from the inside? |
What?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty does religion ALWAYS teach us to not be satisfied with learning about the world? |
No, but it does, who spoke in such an absolute? Surely not the Dawkins quote I know. I believe you're making absolutes up again in order to fabricate some kind of alleged misunderstanding of religion by exception.
I do not believe Dawkins EVER used the word "always." Please quote him!
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty are there any moderate Muslims? |
Of course, your questions are getting sillier and sillier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty have there been any theologians whom gibe with what I've been saying? |
Possibly, but I doubt 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty is religion a useless term in this debate? |
Unless we can agree on a definition, or we focus on your particular belief system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty can Christianity induce a sense of oneness with the universe? |
Yes, so can drugs, brain damage via stroke, and high G testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Does religion have to be what most people think it is? |
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Can metaphor and allegory be subjected to literal truth arguments? |
Yes, and they can fail the standards of logic, and what is actually true about reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Does Darwin's theory refute only Paley? |
Darwin's theory refutes a great many theological tripe, but no one focus's on Darwin's theory anymore. We have learned a great deal more about evolution since Darwin, namely in the genetic record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Why does Dawkins spend so much time refuting something that theologians themselves have already dismissed over a hundred years ago? |
Does he? I was unaware of this. Do you mean that he spends time addressing people who use arguments that have been debunked centuries ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty (you are aware that "God of the Gaps" is a phrase invented by a minister in the 1800's, and was meant derogatorily, right? did Dawkins know that?) |
Possibly, however who invented it is irrelevant. The god of the gaps argument remains a fallacious one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty is anyone that believes Natural Theology is religion, delusional? |
One cannot be delusional about a definition for an ambiguous term. Is there a purpose to this manner of irrelevant questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Why did Hitchens only mention John Henry Newman in his preface to his book, and not discuss anything he actually said, while spending a few pages on Paley? |
I don't understand the purpose to this question, and my copy of the book has no preface. It starts at "putting it mildly."
What did he say about John Henry, please quote it, and explain why this is relevant. Was he wrong about John Henry?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Is Harris wrong when he says that the Bible must be interpreted literally in order to be the correct reading? |
I believe you're making this one up as well, please quote him saying this because I don't believe he believes that there is any "correct" reading of the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty why is it that Harris doesn't seem to notice that the “moderates” tend to be the ones that are actually taking Christ’s advice, while the fundamentalists aren't? |
How doesn't he? I believe he quite clearly makes many arguments about how unchristly most fundamentalists are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty I've given you plenty to debate here. please do. |
Seriously, you gave me a list of purposeless questions, and blatant false straw men. Are you going to address my last post?