ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, August 03, 2012

Mailvox: atheist debate

TS appears to have learned his formidable debating skillz from the late Christopher Hitchens. He wrote, apropos of nothing, and without so much as a subject matter:
I don't recall Hitchens ever arguing a point solely by explaining how he "feels" about it. I fear that while your vocabulary may display the results of some kind of education, your ability to reason indicates a resolute refusal to truly learn or listen.
To which I responded: Assuming your memory isn't flawed, you're either a complete moron or you haven't actually read any of Christopher Hitchens's books. In fact, I would be very interested to know what you feel is the substantive and non-emotional metric by which Hitchens argued God is not great. But considering the possibility that it is your recollection that is the problem, precisely what point do you believe I have argued on the sole basis of my feelings? Deflation vs inflation? Ricardian comparative advantage?

TS responded:
I never claimed that you argue with emotion. I was responding to your message that accompanied the "demotivator" on your website that showed, for some reason, Hitchens with no shirt on. My "feelings" on matters of science are irrelevant, since science is not bridled with emotion. Hitchens is very emotional. What I wrote was that he, from my recollection, does not argue solely based on his emotions. If he did that, you could certainly lump him into the same category as the philsopher, "Dr." Craig or indeed the televangelists you see on TV. But, he does not. Name calling is not necessary but, unfortunately, it is not surprising. Faith, one could argue, is strictly emotional, if you consider that by it's very definition, is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. I would submit that a rational person could only have strong faith in something, for which there is no evidence or overwhelming evidence to the contrary, only if they have been compelled to do so from an early age or have some other emotional revelation about that something. While I have the disadvantage of being as you put it a "moron" (that was the only possible conclusion, since I have read Hitchens), I "feel" no need to be angered by an email. Settle the fuck down.
Dude, it's a demotivator! Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris all ran around acting like complete assholes and more than merited such contempt. But the idea that someone's "ability to reason" is determined by a demotivator - which, in that particular case, I didn't even create - is deeply and profoundly stupid. And no, one cannot reasonably argue that faith is "strictly emotional".

Labels: ,

50 Comments:

Anonymous Josh August 03, 2012 4:21 PM  

Butthurt atheist is butthurt.

Anonymous michael maier August 03, 2012 4:24 PM  

Why bother to post this? TS doesn't add anything to the discussion and whines like a little girl.

And if that was your entire response to him, I'd like to know how he reads "anger" in there.

Anonymous JartStar August 03, 2012 4:31 PM  

"Dr." Craig

William Lane Craig? He has a Ph.D. and a Th.D so I wonder why the quotes besides being petty?

Blogger James Dixon August 03, 2012 4:32 PM  

> ...if you consider that by it's very definition, is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary.

From www.merriam-webster.com:

Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

None of which equate to "belief in something for which there is no evidence". Proof is not the same thing as evidence.

Blogger rcocean August 03, 2012 4:33 PM  

Come on Vox, stop picking on the poor dumb atheists will ya? Most of them are just intellectual cripples following their con-man "leaders".

Blogger JACIII August 03, 2012 4:34 PM  

Hilarious! How do you find these guys?

Anonymous The CronoLink August 03, 2012 4:38 PM  

So because Hitchy didn't SOLELY argued based on his emotions (even though that was his style 93% of the time), ergo Vox has no true capabilities for learning. BRILLIANT SEQUITUR, DUDE!!

Anonymous VD August 03, 2012 4:47 PM  

Why bother to post this?

Because if I didn't post this stuff from time to time, no one would believe it. Also, it tends to explode the atheist claim to have a monopoly on reason and logic by virtue of their disbelief in gods.

Anonymous JartStar August 03, 2012 4:49 PM  

Faith, one could argue, is strictly emotional,

TS, if you are out there please come and make this argument here. I'd be delighted to read your logical argument for faith being strictly emotional.

Blogger IM2L844 August 03, 2012 4:51 PM  

Surprise, surprise. Yet another one of the idiotic Atheist ruck who blather on about things they simply don't know anything about. Dr. Craig is completely dispassionate about the cosmological arguments he so often uses. The Cosmological arguments are, by their very nature, wholly dependent on logic and reason alone. Neither emotion nor faith have anything to do with them. Get a clue, TS.

Anonymous patrick kelly August 03, 2012 4:53 PM  

I've heard that "settle the f**k down" line from enough bigoted atheist morons insulting other people reacting to vulgar, ignorant insults or accusations concerning religion to suspect it's part of some talking point script.

Usually comes out soon as a targeted Christian begins to thoughtfully point out how the moron's statement was ignorant, vulgar, and bigoted. Often followed by very animated atheist yelling, hand waving, and dancing around like a retarded monkey.

Ok, maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration.

Anonymous Emotional Response August 03, 2012 4:54 PM  

Thanks Vox. The ilk need a good laugh once in a while.

Anonymous MendoScot August 03, 2012 4:54 PM  

I don't recall Hitchens ever arguing a point solely by explaining how he "feels" about it.

He derived this from the demotivator? I clearly haven't had enough Scotch.

Anonymous Daniel August 03, 2012 4:57 PM  

Eesh. Bring back the Calvinists with a side order of brain damage and airplane glue before you trot TS out of his intellectual bastion again.

I think you'd have a greater challenge in a debate with an Applebee's menu.

Although, it must be nice to be so intellectually deficient as to hallucinate one's own brilliance. If one wanted to create an iron clad inner world of shiny objects bouncing off rubber walls, it would be crucial to first become so incompetent as to be incapable of recognizing failure at any level.

Anonymous Mr. Tzu August 03, 2012 4:57 PM  

O Luke, where art though?

Praise unto high holy Hitchens, your atoms are called upon to smite unbelievers and that defame your words. bless us with your liquored countenance that they might believe.

Anonymous Suomynona August 03, 2012 5:05 PM  

TS is projecting like a multiscreen drive-in.

My "feelings" on matters of science are irrelevant, since science is not bridled with emotion.

Science is done by scientists who are indeed bridled with emotions, sometimes as a result of their need to eat - from which a motivation other than the pursuit of pure scientific knowledge fires off all kinds of neurons in the emotional half of their big ole scientist brains as they weigh which path will best secure them grant money. In addition, scientists, being humans, are also driven by ideology, especially those whose ideology defies reality, meaning godless, global-warming, faggot-loving, pussified leftists, who again understand that towing the party line is necessary in securing their grant money, and thus continue to exist.

TS hides his head in the sand and perceive the world through his big ole atheist asshole.

Anonymous bob k. mando August 03, 2012 5:05 PM  

michael maier August 03, 2012 4:24 PM
Why bother to post this? TS doesn't add anything to the discussion and whines like a little girl.




so ....
your complaint is that TS is an exemplar of the atheist type?

Blogger Panzerdudicus August 03, 2012 5:12 PM  

Again we notice the faux intellectual's complete inability to grasp a point and not answer the question. TS, irrespective of your recollection, please identify Hitchens' arguments that are not based on emotion and what arguments Vox did make based on emotion.

The rest of your rhetoric is drivel and unnecessary. Such responses do nothing but beg to be addressed as moronic. Simply answer the question and provide your proof. That sounds awfully scientific doesn't it...so give it a try.

Anonymous Suomynona August 03, 2012 5:16 PM  

VD August 03, 2012 4:47 PM
Because if I didn't post this stuff from time to time, no one would believe it.


This is the age of Twitter. One need only read what passes for human thought on the trending topics to realize that we're finished. Stupidity and delusion have reached critical mass in this society.

Anonymous Toby Temple August 03, 2012 5:19 PM  

You guys don't understand!

TS hates the Hitchens demotivator! HATES it, with a capital S!

Anonymous kh123 August 03, 2012 5:30 PM  

"I fear that while your vocabulary may display the results of some kind of..."

Someone's feeling important today.

Anonymous Bobo August 03, 2012 6:47 PM  

TS is a logical positivist from Ed Feser's blog.

Anonymous daddynichol August 03, 2012 6:48 PM  

"... I 'feel' no need to be angered by an email. Settle the fuck down."

Nope. No emotion at all. Spoken like a true Spockette.

Anonymous Bobo August 03, 2012 6:49 PM  

BTW, has anyone read this yet? Great parody of the Freethoughtblogs.
http://www.freethoughtblahgs.com/
(vulgar language warning)

Anonymous physphilmusic August 03, 2012 7:15 PM  

TS is a logical positivist from Ed Feser's blog.

The amusing part is that most gnu atheists are unaware that their logical positivist position is 50 years behind the times, philosophically speaking. No, mankind has not "grown up" from religion - but he has grown up from logical positivism, which had its heyday in the 1950s-60s crumbled over 30-40 years ago.

Anonymous Vic August 03, 2012 7:25 PM  

I find the "no evidence" tripe a bit tiring, as it shows a gross ignorance of the scriptures.

Peter said that he thought fulfilled prophesy was better evidence than even than seeing for yourself.(2 pet 1:12-21)

Jesus also, told of a man in hell that was told "if his brothers did not believe Moses and the prophets, he would not believe even if someone came back from the dead". (Luke 16:31)

This chap did not say he was not convinced by the evidence provided. He simply lied and said that there wasn't any.

Anonymous Vic August 03, 2012 7:36 PM  

Sorry about the extra than in the second paragraph. I must learn to engage brain before hitting the keyboard!

Blogger mmaier2112 August 03, 2012 7:38 PM  

Vox: "Because if I didn't post this stuff from time to time, no one would believe it."

True, I keep forgetting some folks aren't sufficiently exposed to liberal idiocy on a regular basis.

YouTube comments are full of idiots like this one but with far less intellectual firepower and far more vitriol.

Terribly sorry, please carry on. The lessons could be useful for someone, we hope.

Anonymous Luke August 03, 2012 8:05 PM  

Possibly on-topic:

I'd like to know the background of the individual referenced here:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9430835&postID=7996197269673648884


"Those guys [referring to the ~3 guys in the Aurora CO theater shooting who took bullets and died protecting their girlfriends/wives] deserve major respect. Meanwhile, Jamie Rohrs DROPPED his baby on the theater floor and ran out like a little bitch, leaving his girlfriend and their two kids to fend for themselves. He actually got in his car and drove away before she called him on a stranger's cell phone. And he had the nerve to propose to her in the hospital (she was hit in the leg by shrapnel and helped out of the theater with her baby and toddler by a heroic black teenager) and sob on camera to every newscaster in the country."

7/22/12 6:43 PM

Anonymous Mr Green Man August 03, 2012 8:10 PM  

Vox, you responded with a paragraph. If it's more than 5 words, the knee-jerk reaction of the stupid is something along the lines of: "Settle down!"

E.g.:

rant (n): A set of sentences in reply to your expressed opinion that you disagree with, esp. if it is made of a topic sentence, supporting sentences, and concluding sentence.

Anonymous Libet August 03, 2012 8:38 PM  

So, according to TS, Hitchens does not argue solely on emotion, but William Lane Craig does.

How do people manage such a disconnect from reality?

Anonymous E. PERLINE August 03, 2012 8:48 PM  

We would all be more accurate in our thinking if we made feeling emotion a rare reaction. For instance, it's all right emotionally if you gaze at your beloved and consider that her life and loveliness will someday pass. But this feeling must come rarely and be brief.

It's not all right to be emotional if your pizza was delivered with a salami topping instead of a pepperoni topping. In matters like that, emotions should come - never. They undermine our immune system

Anonymous Clay August 03, 2012 9:18 PM  

BTW.....OT....but from time to time, you guys should check out Diogenes's Midfle Finger. She's kinda funny, smart, and...likes to treat the guys. Doesn't pot a whole lot...but maybe you could change that.

Sorry VD, for using you blog a a prostitute>

Anonymous Clay August 03, 2012 9:40 PM  

Sorry, boys & Girls. I ain't thinking, & I'm not linking at the moment. Cut&Paste. http://www.suckersonparade.blogspot.com/

Blogger IM2L844 August 03, 2012 10:02 PM  

TS is a logical positivist from Ed Feser's blog.

Ahhh...TOUCHSTONE. Now I get it. He's the tediously wordy dullard with very little to say.

Anonymous Stickwick August 03, 2012 11:26 PM  

... science is not bridled with emotion.

On what planet? This dork is obviously not a scientist. My very first week in graduate school I attended a colloquium wherein I witnessed a heated argument between two world-famous physicists that very nearly came to blows. The science world is fraught with emotion, which is one of the reasons we have scientific revolutions.

Blogger Crude August 04, 2012 12:39 AM  

My very first week in graduate school I attended a colloquium wherein I witnessed a heated argument between two world-famous physicists that very nearly came to blows.

So what was the subject? String Theory?

Anonymous Lookin For Popcorn August 04, 2012 12:56 AM  

Obviously, they didn't see me pulling my pud behind them.

Good Times.

Anonymous physphilmusic August 04, 2012 1:02 AM  

My very first week in graduate school I attended a colloquium wherein I witnessed a heated argument between two world-famous physicists that very nearly came to blows.

I'm reminded of the scene (in the Big Bang Theory) of Leonard's and Sheldon's physical fight in front of the audience when Leonard was presenting, and that in response to Penny's question whether it was normal for them to do so, Howard responded "More often than you think!"

Anonymous Stickwick August 04, 2012 1:09 AM  

So what was the subject? String Theory?

No. IIRC, it was the cosmic microwave background, and they were arguing over the value of some parameter. To their credit, they settled it amicably after the talk was over.

Anonymous Stickwick August 04, 2012 1:23 AM  

... in response to Penny's question whether it was normal for them to do so, Howard responded "More often than you think!"

That was a great scene. TBBT is one of my all-time favorite shows, because it's so true to life. In case any of you were wondering, TBBT is almost exactly what the academic science world is like.

Incidentally, my favorite scene ever is this one. I spent countless hours like that with my advisor, but without the cool soundtrack.

Anonymous Freddy August 04, 2012 3:58 AM  

Christopher Hitchens presently incurs unmittigated wrath from Christ because he willingly rejected the grace and forgiveness offered to him in myriad ways, lastly in the Doug Wilson debates.

Yea, yea, you can argue like a punk...sure we all can....but you don't have the epistemic goods in the end. You have always lacked in that philosophical area. "Unjustified!" is the refrain from the VD camp.

After watching The Collision between Hitchens and Wilson I realize that you must die so much more than you already think you have.

And you will, if God wills.

Anonymous VD August 04, 2012 7:24 AM  

"Unjustified!" is the refrain from the VD camp.

What on Earth are you talking about? When have I ever even used that term?

Blogger mmaier2112 August 04, 2012 10:11 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger mmaier2112 August 04, 2012 10:13 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger mmaier2112 August 04, 2012 10:14 PM  

I give up:

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/decemberweb-only/christopher-hitchens-obituary.html

It keeps putting a Vox Blog addy in front of that so screw it anyway.

Anonymous The One August 05, 2012 1:50 AM  

Yawn. Once again no scientific evidence is being defined as no evidence totAl. Either to stupid to realize it or intentionally ignoring the fact eye witnes testimony trumps scientific evidence e in a court of law.

Blogger Markku August 05, 2012 10:09 AM  

No. IIRC, it was the cosmic microwave background, and they were arguing over the value of some parameter. To their credit, they settled it amicably after the talk was over.

Probably the density parameter. It is important as to whether or not the universe will end in the Big Crunch. If it does, then they get rid of the annoying question "what caused the big bang?" because then the universe can be an infinite sequence of big bangs and crunches. They are then free of the entropy problem of infinity, as the laws of physics don't need to apply when the universe is a single point.

Anonymous Stickwick August 05, 2012 1:05 PM  

They are then free of the entropy problem of infinity, as the laws of physics don't need to apply when the universe is a single point.

Alexander Vilenkin has said that the cyclical universe model doesn't work. In fact, all of the theoretical work-arounds to get an eternal universe model that agrees with the data have failed. New Scientist has an article about this, but unfortunately it requires a subscription. The take-home point is that physicists admit they are stuck with a creation event.

Anonymous Darth_toolpodicus August 06, 2012 10:58 AM  

"if you consider that by it's very definition, is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary."

That may be the case in *english*, but that doesn't really match the actual greek word that we translate "faith" from.

The word translated as “faith” in the NT is the Greek Pistis- n/Pisteuo -v: πίστις, to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in.

A word associated with rhetorical proof and evidence. Faith in something demonstrated to be so. Looking at the NT authors, particularly Paul, there was no mistake in their choice of words here…the emphasis is evidentiary, not pie-in-the-sky "blind faith".

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts