Comments on: I Wish Russell Simmons Were an Atheist

By: garment business daily

garment business daily — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:40:12 +0000

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:51:20 +0000

Apologia's point stands. I'll even break it down better. Alvin Plantinga wrote a book entitled _God and Other Minds_, the thesis of which is that God's existence is indeed not provable in any indubitable, necessarily compelling sense. But then neither is the existence of other minds around you. You will most likely not appreciate the point, since other minds are obvious (who else would you be talking to?). Yet in epistemology, metaphysics, the "Problem of Other Minds" remains. No one can formally demonstrate in a necessarily compelling way that solipsism is not true. Everyone else could just be "philosophical zombies" that BEHAVE as men, but truly have nothing going on internally, no subjective minds. You can't prove that because you can't have access to internal states of others; all you can do is try to infer internal subjectivity from behavior, and the gap between internal and externam will remain. Is it rational to believe other minds exist? Yes. In fact, it's irrational not to. Oh no! We have to accept a belief we cannot prove! How terrible! Rational people understand faith comes BEFORE reason. Without faith, reason is nothing, since you must initially have faith IN reason's validity to begin with, unless you find a way to prove the validity of reason with reason itself, which is circular. (No, for God's sake, you cannot do it with the Almighty Scientific Method either — you gotta have faith in that, too. And don't misunderstand me; I use faith in the literal, broad sense, not the theological one).

Plantinga's conclusion, after many pages of arguing? Belief in God and belief in other minds rest on principally equivalent grounds. If you reject God due to lack of proof, then don't act so epistemologic cally "hard to get" because you can't prove beyond a doubt that you're not in a Matrix-like world either. Please don't accuse me of philosophical mumbo-jumbo either, because I KNOW I don't live in a Matrix or solipsistic world — I know it with faith and reason together. Yes, faith is necessary for most knowledge.

Don't say I'm playing a rhetorical trick to bait you; that's itself a rhetorical trick (ad hominem). Here is Apologia's point in logical form:

1. You stated in your first post: "I lack the capacity to have faith in some idea that cannot be proved."
2. (Implicit) You cannot prove any of the other statements you made, or any in this string of assertions you've made.
3. You believe them, presumably.
4. Thus you have faith in them to a degree, since you can't prove them.
5. What the hell gives?

If you say one more time, or appeal to one more time, the idea that scientific method, or "science" or scientifically provable, facts are the only worth holding, as if scientific method is the standard for knowledge, then we are done here and I'll leave you and your faith alone. Same with induction. I don't care what Mill has said about induction. He wouldn't have even been studied anymore if it hadn't been for his dreadful utilitarianism. I accept induction and science as valid, just not as the foundations or the standards for knowledge.

I'll have you know that Aristotle and Aquinas based their arguments for God on empirical grounds for their starting premise. But you won't accept that, I'm sure, since you claim to have read Aquinas (yet then you attribute an ontological argument to him, which is just wrong).

One thing I don't, unfortunately, have faith in, is your ability to comprehend what I've said ,or at least to formulate a coherent, factually correct response to it. I swear I'm not trying to be mean, or bait you, but I won't waste time arguing if you've proved that you're just not going to get it. It's frustrating, and I'm sick at the moment.

Also notice I haven't even told you my religious beliefs yet. Your epistemological standards are all that are under discussion. Admit you have some faith in the unprovable, or abandon into self-defeating, impracticable radical skepticism.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:50:56 +0000

"If you're intellectually honest, you recognize there are powerful arguments for the existence of God that rational people are justified in accepting." That's all I said. If you translate that as, in your words, "that if I was intellectually honest I would agree with your point of view," then conversation is probably going to be impossible with you. Don't worry; I'll explain: Recognition that there are powerful arguments for a position that rational men are justified to accept is not tantamount to agreeing with those positions. Example: I think it is rationally justifiable for rational men to accept that God does not exist, i.e., there are powerful arguments in favor of atheism that rational people can hold (for instance, Quentin Smith, Bertrand Russell, and others like them). Justification is not the same as accuracy. One may be justified in holding a belief that is wrong, since there can be good reasons and arguments for a wrong position. My point ONLY was that you should recognize there are arguments for theism which rational men are justified in accepting. Obviously, that does not mean you must agree with them. Basically, if you can't acknowledge that men like Aquinas, Locke, Plato, Kant, etc., were rational men who had justifiable arguments for God's existence, then you're intellectually dishonest. It would mean you're on the level of Hitchens or Dawkins. Maybe you should try taking MY words as they're stated and stop imputing malice on me.

As for the rest, I'm not trying to be mean, but it looks like empty verbiage and baseless assertions. I'm not going to attempt to sort through it and see if there is an argument (clear, linear, one point logically flowing from the other) lurking in there. All I noticed were factually incorrect statements, misunderstandings of my words, the philosophy of others, and philosophy in a broad sense.

By: newstogod

newstogod — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:14:11 +0000

See my video utube newtogod channel Be careful what you wish for

By: newstogod

newstogod — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:10:44 +0000

Are you sure you are not bothered by how sure we Atheists are? Soon there will be a majority of Atheists because it is the most logical. People that believe in gods will be tolerated and ignored. Finally peace in the world.

By: newstogod

newstogod — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:04:52 +0000

Can I get this reward in cash? I am always amazed that someone can say they know what the thing that created the entire humongous, gigantic, universe and maybe a billion others wants or thinks or lists the good and bad things we do. Mental telepathy–what? Do you Christians ever think about what you are saying? You can't be sure of what you next door neighbor thinks.

By: newstogod

newstogod — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:50:01 +0000

I don't think these religious missions do anything but cause problems– they can't generate enough money to make an impact on anything but the church goers billfold. They should stay home and give free pot lucks.

World of the future will have a majority of atheists because it makes the most sense and because the internet dilutes church doctrine. You would never have you thinking challenged without the internet. You would go your merry way thinking you were always right. Nothing to challenge you ideas. Today teen believers are seeing and hearing thinking they never would have been exposed to before. There will not be the need to make laws about what to believe as they did 50 years ago. People will be in agreement and let the minority who believe in gods alone. You better hope that's what happens otherwise, the world will not be worth living in. The problem with religion is one of them thinks they have to win over the other. take care

By: newstogod

newstogod — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:12:07 +0000

I was raised catholic also, luckily I saw the error of my parents influence and became an Atheist. In my large family I am the only one that is no longer catholic. They are catholic because of my parents– at 2 weeks baptized us — no choice–bang that's it. Obviously, you took another route. We can still say 99% of religious people are the same faith as the parents and that is has a lot to do with where you are born as well. Think of it this way. If you were born a Muslim you may not have had the opportunity to take theology unless it was Muslim based. You might be an Iman in a mosque. You have had the luxury of thought and freedom to act. Obviously, I disagree with you conclusion.

By: newstogod

newstogod — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:52:29 +0000

Funny stuff

By: newstogod

newstogod — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:50:35 +0000

He only wants voluntary worship and love from Man.

I find it interesting that you know what god wants. Many Christians tell me they know how god thinks. It's statements like that, that help me know Atheism is the correct choice.