Time and time again apologists will accuse skeptics of not believing in miracles solely because of “naturalist presuppositions.” Repeatedly I have patiently explained that my skepticism towards miracle is not some a priori prejudice, but rather a conclusion reached a posteriori upon investigating the world that we live in. Did we all as children abandon our belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy because we presupposed one day on our couch that such persons cannot exist? Or rather, was it upon growing up and investing the world that we realized that these characters are simply incompatible with the realm of all experience?
(via deconversionmovement)
Perhaps I was referring to the generalizations christianengineer was referring to. It is generally better to not jump onto the middle of a conversation without reading all that came before. You made a lot of assumptions about me and the basis of my comments without paying…
(Source: christianengineer)
(via deconversionmovement & christianengineer)
To answer my atheist friend on tumblr who asked: I believe everything in the Bible true because I am a Christian.
That is what we call a non-answer.
Faith in God and the Word of God is very important.
I have no use for Faith.
No, I do not…
(via divineirony & testedspirit)
“A chronicle of Easter Day would be a hopeless enterprise, and the conflict of traditions has still to be sorted out…
As matters stand we have no apparition stories that do not bear the mark of extremely sophisticated literary editing.”
– Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Resurrection – Interpreting the Easter Gospel, p89, 98.
”
World’s “first historical novel” has empty tomb!
“Chaereas was guarding and toward dawn, he approached the tomb. When he came close, however, he found the stones moved away and the entrance open.
He looked in and was shocked, seized by a great perplexity at what had happened. Rumor made an immediate report to the Syracusans about the miracle. All then ran to the tomb; no one dared to enter until Hermocrates ordered it. One was sent in, and he reported everything accurately.
It seemed incredible – the dead girl was not there. Searching the tomb he was able to find nothing. Many came in after him, disbelieving. Amazement seized everyone, and some said as they stood there:
“The shroud has been stripped off, this is the work of grave robbers; but where is the body?”
– Chariton of Aphrodisias, Chaereas and Callirhoe 1st century AD
Sam Harris
(via the9th)
(via deconversionmovement & the9th)
“The list of religious atrocities committed in the sacrosanct name of Christ is long and varied …
In proof of this, witness the gibbets, the wheels, the massacres, and the horrible burnings at the stake of nearly a hundred thousand human beings in a single province -
the massacres and devastations of nine mad crusades of Christians against unoffending Turks, during nearly two hundred years; in which many millions of human beings perished-
the massacre of the Anabaptists-
the massacres of the Lutherans and Papists, from the Rhine to the extremities of the north-
the massacres in Ireland, England, and Scotland, in the time of Charles the First, who was himself massacred-
the massacres ordered by Henry the Eighth and his daughter Mary-
the massacres of St. Bartholomew in France; and forty years more of other massacres between the time of Francis the First, and the entry of Henry the Fourth into Paris-
the massacres of the Inquisition, which are more execrable still, as being judicially committed-
to say nothing of the innumerable schisms, and twenty wars of popes against popes-bishops against bishops the poisoning assassinations-
the cruel rapines of more than a dozen of popes, who far exceeded a Nero or Caligula in every species of crime and wickedness-
the massacre of twelve millions of the inhabitants of the new world, executed CRUCIFIX IN HAND; and all for the honour and glory of the Jewish deity and his son!”
”
1. First of all, making the kind of judgements you’ve made about such a brief and simple quotation is like trying to judge Under the Volcano based on the first chapter. In other words, I recommend at least viewing the video from which this quotation was taken before saying he’s making ad hominem attacks, or that he’s implying that nihilism is the only serious form of atheism.
I watched the video in its entirety. As a matter of fact, I’ve seen the video before. The video has confirmed my original accusation. Atheism is a “fantasy world”; “let us pretend that there’s no god.” These are examples of appeal to ridicule. Again, Barron is a dreadful philosopher. Modern atheists are also “unintelligent” according to him; that’s more ad hominem. Yes, he said that “new atheism” is unintelligent, but in saying that, he’s saying that modern atheists are unintelligent—especially since all modern atheists are called “new atheists” as means to discredit them and distinguish them from the so called true atheists of times passed.
2. The video from which this quotation is taken is a brief, and fairly casual video. Even if you were to watch the video and from that make the judgement that Barron “demonstrates the logic of a dreadful philosopher,” it would be like judging a writer’s literary talent from his casual conversation, or a brief lecture he gave somewhere.
This is a nice attempt at defending him, but it fails. Any writer should be able to demonstrate their “literary talent” in a lecture or brief interview regarding the subject matter they focus on and/or specialize in. It is safe to assume that Barron writes this way—assuming he writes; I’m sorry, but after watching a few of his interviews, I have no interest in reading anything he may have written.
3. Even despite these things, the criticisms that you’ve made don’t make sense. Let’s look at the two claims you’ve made (first that Father Barron is committing the ad hominem fallacy, and second that he’s implying that nihilism is the only serious form of atheism).
a) Father Barron does not in this quotation commit the ad hominem fallacy (nor does he in the video). If he were to argue that the New Atheists were ‘playing at atheism’ because they were frivolous and childish, then he would have committed an ad hominem fallacy, by trying to prove that their position was invalid based upon personal attacks against them. But clearly that isn’t what he’s doing. Rather, he has evaluated the position of the New Atheists, and judged that they are childishly and frivolously ‘playing at atheism’.
My original examples were instances of ad hominem and after watching the video, I’ve been able to provide more. After evaluating the position of Catholics, I judge that they are childishly and frivolously playing at paganism. Am I suddenly correct in my assessment? It isn’t only ad hominem; it also verges on abusive fallacy. If I made such an assessment, it is likely that I attempted to insult Catholics; it is safe to assume that he’s attempting to insult today’s atheists. His pompous attitude gives him away; he’s arrogant and he misrepresents today’s atheists. “Let’s pretend there’s no god”; pretend? I’m not acting here; I’m living without his god and it will be that way until I die. Of this I am certain. If that quote isn’t a misrepresentation, I don’t know what is. As a matter of fact, let’s turn it on it’s head: Christians say, “let’s pretend there’s a god.” I’m pretty sure some atheist has said that before, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s abusive fallacy and it doesn’t change the fact that they have it all wrong. Christians actually believe god exists and they live their life with that in mind; they’re not pretending. I, of course, can say that they’re wrong, but I can’t say that they’re pretending because I wasn’t pretending when I was Christian. Simulacrums have that effect, but that is another discussion.
b) Nor is he implying that nihilism is the only serious form of atheism. In fact, he’s doing almost the opposite. He’s referring explicitly to the existentialists, and in the video he refers directly to people like Sarte and Camus, who were not nihilists.
Sartre and Camus aren’t nihilists; you are correct. However, Camus was an absurdist; absurdism is similar to nihilism in many respects. Sartre was an atheistic existentialist; I would call myself one as well. However, I take it one step further; I’m not willing meaning into my life. I have come to realize that meaning is extrinsic; it isn’t intrinsic or god-given as most, if not all, believers believe. You can disagree and I know you will, but what makes intrinsic meaning better than extrinsic meaning? Also, what led Barron to think that we all desire god? I don’t desire god, and herein lies another example of his odious logic.
The argument from desire is nonsensical. In the video he speaks of hunger. Hunger isn’t a desire; it’s a need! Food doesn’t exist because we need it or because we desire it; our need for food exists because we have evolved to need vitamins, minerals and perhaps most importantly, calories—all of which come from consumption. Therefore, Barron’s logic is completely backward. In like manner, toilets don’t exist because we desire to urinate and digest; toilets exist because we designed them to provide comfort whilst defecating. The argument from desire fails miserably. For starters, it confuses needs and desires; furthermore, it fails to account for at least two types of people: 1) People who have no desire for god (like myself) 2) People whose supposed desire is met by another deity that they think to be real (hence why there have been and are many other deities). You still want to say that I have erred in my judgment? Do I have Barron wrong or have you got me wrong? Before you gnash your teeth at the very thought of being corrected by an atheist, sit back and recall that I am human and that I reason—difference being that I’ve come to a different conclusion; however, that also is a different discussion.
4. I’ll try to sum up the argument he makes in the video (if I can call such off-handed comments an argument). He says that, like Christians, the existentialists were aware that humans have a desire for something beyond this life, or a desire that nothing in life can satisfy. They didn’t shy away from this. But the New Atheists seem to be saying that only without a concept of God, of something beyond this life, can we be free to relax and enjoy life, and they ignore our desire for something beyond this life. And, Father Barron argues, this means they’re only playing at atheism, whereas people like Sarte seriously and philosophically addressed it.
I seriously and philosophically address the question of god; however, I have expanded my scope far beyond the Judeo-Christian god. It is obvious that you haven’t done that. Not all humans desire some transcendental something; I have addressed that above. Sartre, Camus and Nietzsche didn’t know what we know today, and perhaps that is the reason why they felt a void. However, they didn’t feel a void because it was a god-shaped hole; they felt the void of ignorance. I too feel that void; I can conclude that we aren’t alone in the universe, but I still long to know. I long to know the nature of dark matter and dark energy; I long to know if there’s a multiverse. I may be dead and gone before any of that is addressed; yet I am satisfied in what I do know. I am able to look back and appreciate the fact that I have the privilege to know what them before me couldn’t; hopefully my future brothers and sisters can feel the same way regardless of the void of ignorance. I need not fame, honor, money, sex, etc.; I need knowledge and thankfully, there’s so much of it to attain—so much so that I’ll never be able to know all there is to know, even if I lived thousands of lifetimes. Here’s one thing I do know: if anyone desire a god, they shouldn’t desire the Judeo-Christian god; I know that he doesn’t exist and that he is a relic from a time long gone. I know that if he existed, he would be worthy of repulsion and utter contempt or far worse; he would not be worthy of praise and glory. Thankfully, he’s simply an abstraction that lives up to his name: the god of war. That is precisely why he commanded his angel to murder thousands; that is precisely why he murdered infants and children. That is exactly why he threatened to gut pregnant women; I would think twice before calling myself pro-life.
(via deconversionmovement & gwyon)
Page 1 of 56
