Lachean

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

I do not believe I have left any arguments unaddressed, now will you respond to my counter-post? (As well as this one)

Please do.

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.

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.

No, they address all forms of religion, its you who denies the majority of religionist worldviews for your own.

No, and EACH of the NA's explain how the word is problematic due to its various ambiguous meanings.

What?

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!

Of course, your questions are getting sillier and sillier.

Possibly, but I doubt 100%.

Unless we can agree on a definition, or we focus on your particular belief system.

Yes, so can drugs, brain damage via stroke, and high G testing.

No.

Yes, and they can fail the standards of logic, and what is actually true about reality.

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.

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?

Possibly, however who invented it is irrelevant. The god of the gaps argument remains a fallacious one.

One cannot be delusional about a definition for an ambiguous term. Is there a purpose to this manner of irrelevant questions?

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?

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.

How doesn't he? I believe he quite clearly makes many arguments about how unchristly most fundamentalists are.

Seriously, you gave me a list of purposeless questions, and blatant false straw men. Are you going to address my last post?

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

Lachean

Sidenote: If you do indeed agree with most of their arguments on religion, given that most religionists don't get spirituality or that most Christians don't get Christianity, would you not then have to concede the debate?

If they are "mostly" right then shouldn't the debate be whether the New Atheists have some misunderstandings on religion, or have made some absolute statements about religion that do not apply to your spirituality, or have no arguments against your particular brand of "religion"?

niftydrifty

"Mostly" is your word. I've never used it. I understand you've used this word to sum up my position, but it's inaccurate. I actually don't agree with their arguments on religion. They believe it's all false. I don't. I believe Christianity can lead to a valid spiritual experience. They don't. They seem to believe that all Christians embrace Natural Theology. We don't. Dawkins thinks religion is a scientific theory. I don't. I could literally go on and on. These are big differences.

My response, to everything you've typed here, will come in a few weeks. It will be another long one.

Lachean

I believe you said "I am actually in complete agreement with you, Dawkins, and Harris on the subject of fundamentalism and creationism" and that "Many, perhaps even most, Christians don’t “get” Christianity" in post #5.

Does most or many not count as mostly?

You mean you do not agree with all of them, given that you agree with them when it comes to fundamentalists, creationists and think that "most" Christians don't "get" it.

What percentage of religionists do you think that covers?

Wrong, not believing in any religion and believing that there is no evidence or reason to is not the same as believing that a certain belief is false.

There is a HUGE distinction between "I do not believe in a god" and "I believe that there is no god." They believe that they cannot all be true, given that they make incompatible claims, and that they have never been presented with valid evidence for any such propositions.

Wrong again, Sam Harris (and Dawkins, but namely Sam) recognizes it, among various other avenues (like meditation, isolation, etc...) for inducing "spiritual experiences."

Not true, they believe that believers believe whatever they say that they believe. They take believer's claims and arguments at their word, and then debunk them.

Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by "natural theology?"

Wrong, that would be absurd. Evolution and the fact that we revolve around the sun are scientific theories; There is no way he would regard any religion as that credible.

He believes that whether or not there is a god is a scientific hypothesis, and a failed one (a whole chapter on this.)

And I could literally go on and on about how you misunderstand and misrepresent the arguments that you say you disagree with. Given that each of your criticism is invalid, I really don't think you understand their arguments and have too quickly glanced over their books dismissively.

Please try and be as concise as possible.

Lachean

While responding to my previous posts, To get back on topic please address the focus of my disagreement with the challenge of this debate:
1. Why are the "New Atheist's" arguments against the millions (probably billions) of people practice religion in the naïve, anthropomorphic, and superstitious forms relevant to this debate?

Obviously these arguments are not misunderstandings of spirituality, but identifications of those who misunderstand it by your Christian moderate allegorical standards.

By saying that spirituality is really something other than the irrational belief in magic books, virgin births, the power of prayer, etc., Do you not ignore how pervasive the problem of religious irrationality is? That is one of the sins of religious “moderation” that Harris mentions in “The End of Faith.”

Will you not concede that these arguments reflect correct understandings of "religion" as those who hold it profess?

2. It seems to me the question of why most Christians/religionists are wrong and you are right about spirituality is most important. What reason do you have for believing this, by what standard do you make the distinction?

How do you determine which passages in your scripture are to be taken allegorically or metaphorically, and why are the clergy, that Jehovah's Witness, and most other "Christians" wrong for theirs? This is the age old question, given the millions of religions and versions of Christianity on offer "why is your religion/spirituality true?"

I await your presentation, because so far what you have quoted as alleged "misunderstandings" are in fact true about the kind of religion that you claim misunderstands spirituality, which does not reflect a misunderstanding of any kind; if there is an argument that follows from true premises with valid logic for your "spirituality" that you claim they have not addressed, I am ALL EARS.

Don't just link to them, make the argument... this is a debate isn't it?