Sam Harris Vs. Scott Adams

[heydaralon]

Better than the stupids looking up to a fellow stupid says I. Bonus, they might improve their vocabulary by looking up some of those 24 dollar words Hitchens was wont to employ.

Now shall we discuss what bands we used to think were cool until they got big and we got really cool?

Knowing big words doesn't make you smart, any more than being an atheist makes you smart. And I used to listen to Offspring, Green Day, and System of a Down when I was in middle school.

All true, all true. Now:



Please to ironically enjoy my friend!

You picked the worst of the 3 bands I listed, and the one that has aged the worst. Come on man. Post something from Smash or maybe Dookie.

[Speaker to Animals]

Hitchens was really pathetic, honestly. I felt embarrassed for him half the time. His signature fallacious tactic was to launch into a diatribe of pathos backed up by a lot of irrelevant information. He never actually argued anything when he went up against better minds (like William Lane Craig). Granted, Craig is probably one of the best debaters you will encounter. That was out of Hitchen's league, really. But if you watch that debate, you can well see the poverty of his arguments (or what passes for argument). When he gets cornered in the debate, instead of admitting his defeat or even revising his argument, he launches into this emotional virtue signaling. It's really bizarre.

Hart spends a wrote an article exposing his ridiculous "enthymemes" in humorous fashion:

As best I can tell, Hitchens’ case against faith consists mostly in a series of anecdotal enthymemes—that is to say, syllogisms of which one premise has been suppressed. Unfortunately, in each case it turns out to be the major premise that is missing, so it is hard to guess what links the minor premise to the conclusion. One need only attempt to write out some of his arguments in traditional syllogistic style to see the difficulty:

Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Evelyn Waugh was always something of a bastard, and his Catholic chauvinism often made him even worse.
Conclusion : “Religion” is evil.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : There are many bad men who are Buddhists.
Conclusion : All religious claims are false.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Timothy Dwight opposed smallpox vaccinations.
Conclusion : There is no God.




One could, I imagine, counter with a series of contrary enthymemes. Perhaps:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Early Christians built hospitals.
Conclusion : “Religion” is a good thing.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Medieval scriptoria saved much of the literature of classical antiquity from total eclipse.
Conclusion : All religious claims are true.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : George Bernard Shaw opposed smallpox vaccinations.
Conclusion : There is a God.


But this appears to get us nowhere. And, in the end, I doubt it matters.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/201 ... -it-or-not


These new atheist guys are really over-hyped, honestly. Atheism has fallen on hard times.

[heydaralon]

Hitchens was really pathetic, honestly. I felt embarrassed for him half the time. His signature fallacious tactic was to launch into a diatribe of pathos backed up by a lot of irrelevant information. He never actually argued anything when he went up against better minds (like William Lane Craig). Granted, Craig is probably one of the best debaters you will encounter. That was out of Hitchen's league, really. But if you watch that debate, you can well see the poverty of his arguments (or what passes for argument). When he gets cornered in the debate, instead of admitting his defeat or even revising his argument, he launches into this emotional virtue signaling. It's really bizarre.

Hart spends a wrote an article exposing his ridiculous "enthymemes" in humorous fashion:

As best I can tell, Hitchens’ case against faith consists mostly in a series of anecdotal enthymemes—that is to say, syllogisms of which one premise has been suppressed. Unfortunately, in each case it turns out to be the major premise that is missing, so it is hard to guess what links the minor premise to the conclusion. One need only attempt to write out some of his arguments in traditional syllogistic style to see the difficulty:

Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Evelyn Waugh was always something of a bastard, and his Catholic chauvinism often made him even worse.
Conclusion : “Religion” is evil.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : There are many bad men who are Buddhists.
Conclusion : All religious claims are false.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Timothy Dwight opposed smallpox vaccinations.
Conclusion : There is no God.




One could, I imagine, counter with a series of contrary enthymemes. Perhaps:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Early Christians built hospitals.
Conclusion : “Religion” is a good thing.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Medieval scriptoria saved much of the literature of classical antiquity from total eclipse.
Conclusion : All religious claims are true.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : George Bernard Shaw opposed smallpox vaccinations.
Conclusion : There is a God.


But this appears to get us nowhere. And, in the end, I doubt it matters.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/201 ... -it-or-not


These new atheist guys are really over-hyped, honestly. Atheism has fallen on hard times.

I really dislike the new atheists, though I'm not sure I share your enthusiasm for Sartre. I think that guy was a bozo. Not an expert on him, but he was basically just a shill for the worst excesses of Communism. An atheist I think you would enjoy StA is a guy named Giacomo Leopardi. Very interesting thinker. He talks about the barbarism of reason and the usefulness of myths.I'm not super familiar with him, but his ideas provoke critical thinking as opposed to Dawkins who just makes fun of some creationist and extrapolates that to every person of faith.

[Speaker to Animals]

Hitchens was really pathetic, honestly. I felt embarrassed for him half the time. His signature fallacious tactic was to launch into a diatribe of pathos backed up by a lot of irrelevant information. He never actually argued anything when he went up against better minds (like William Lane Craig). Granted, Craig is probably one of the best debaters you will encounter. That was out of Hitchen's league, really. But if you watch that debate, you can well see the poverty of his arguments (or what passes for argument). When he gets cornered in the debate, instead of admitting his defeat or even revising his argument, he launches into this emotional virtue signaling. It's really bizarre.

Hart spends a wrote an article exposing his ridiculous "enthymemes" in humorous fashion:

As best I can tell, Hitchens’ case against faith consists mostly in a series of anecdotal enthymemes—that is to say, syllogisms of which one premise has been suppressed. Unfortunately, in each case it turns out to be the major premise that is missing, so it is hard to guess what links the minor premise to the conclusion. One need only attempt to write out some of his arguments in traditional syllogistic style to see the difficulty:

Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Evelyn Waugh was always something of a bastard, and his Catholic chauvinism often made him even worse.
Conclusion : “Religion” is evil.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : There are many bad men who are Buddhists.
Conclusion : All religious claims are false.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Timothy Dwight opposed smallpox vaccinations.
Conclusion : There is no God.




One could, I imagine, counter with a series of contrary enthymemes. Perhaps:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Early Christians built hospitals.
Conclusion : “Religion” is a good thing.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : Medieval scriptoria saved much of the literature of classical antiquity from total eclipse.
Conclusion : All religious claims are true.

Or:
Major Premise : [omitted]
Minor Premise : George Bernard Shaw opposed smallpox vaccinations.
Conclusion : There is a God.


But this appears to get us nowhere. And, in the end, I doubt it matters.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/201 ... -it-or-not


These new atheist guys are really over-hyped, honestly. Atheism has fallen on hard times.

I really dislike the new atheists, though I'm not sure I share your enthusiasm for Sartre. I think that guy was a bozo. Not an expert on him, but he was basically just a shill for the worst excesses of Communism. An atheist I think you would enjoy StA is a guy named Giacomo Leopardi. Very interesting thinker. He talks about the barbarism of reason and the usefulness of myths.I'm not super familiar with him, but his ideas provoke critical thinking as opposed to Dawkins who just makes fun of some creationist and extrapolates that to every person of faith.

Well, I am not a fan of him. I am just pointing out that atheism used to actually have deadly intellects behind it. These days it's vacuous and really quite ridiculous.

[heydaralon]

Hitchens was really pathetic, honestly. I felt embarrassed for him half the time. His signature fallacious tactic was to launch into a diatribe of pathos backed up by a lot of irrelevant information. He never actually argued anything when he went up against better minds (like William Lane Craig). Granted, Craig is probably one of the best debaters you will encounter. That was out of Hitchen's league, really. But if you watch that debate, you can well see the poverty of his arguments (or what passes for argument). When he gets cornered in the debate, instead of admitting his defeat or even revising his argument, he launches into this emotional virtue signaling. It's really bizarre.

Hart spends a wrote an article exposing his ridiculous "enthymemes" in humorous fashion:



https://www.firstthings.com/article/201 ... -it-or-not


These new atheist guys are really over-hyped, honestly. Atheism has fallen on hard times.

I really dislike the new atheists, though I'm not sure I share your enthusiasm for Sartre. I think that guy was a bozo. Not an expert on him, but he was basically just a shill for the worst excesses of Communism. An atheist I think you would enjoy StA is a guy named Giacomo Leopardi. Very interesting thinker. He talks about the barbarism of reason and the usefulness of myths.I'm not super familiar with him, but his ideas provoke critical thinking as opposed to Dawkins who just makes fun of some creationist and extrapolates that to every person of faith.

Well, I am not a fan of him. I am just pointing out that atheism used to actually have deadly intellects behind it. These days it's vacuous and really quite ridiculous.

It reminds me of that book the Power and the Glory by Graham Greene, about how the whiskey priest being hunted by the Marxist Colonel was beset with doubt and constantly questioned his own faith. He often felt god had abandoned him. The Colonel in contrast, who was an atheist, was utterly certain of his beliefs. Its just interesting how atheists today are far more fanatical about god not existing, than most religious people. They have no doubt at all. The height of arrogance.

[Speaker to Animals]

I really dislike the new atheists, though I'm not sure I share your enthusiasm for Sartre. I think that guy was a bozo. Not an expert on him, but he was basically just a shill for the worst excesses of Communism. An atheist I think you would enjoy StA is a guy named Giacomo Leopardi. Very interesting thinker. He talks about the barbarism of reason and the usefulness of myths.I'm not super familiar with him, but his ideas provoke critical thinking as opposed to Dawkins who just makes fun of some creationist and extrapolates that to every person of faith.

Well, I am not a fan of him. I am just pointing out that atheism used to actually have deadly intellects behind it. These days it's vacuous and really quite ridiculous.

It reminds me of that book the Power and the Glory by Graham Greene, about how the whiskey priest being hunted by the Marxist Colonel was beset with doubt and constantly questioned his own faith. He often felt god had abandoned him. The Colonel in contrast, who was an atheist, was utterly certain of his beliefs. Its just interesting how atheists today are far more fanatical about god not existing, than most religious people. They have no doubt at all. The height of arrogance.

I haven't read that novel, but that is one of the best descriptions of the state of affairs I have heard.

[StCapps]

I don't get Gnostics. It's impossible to know whether god exists or not, their sense of certainty, one way or the other, just doesn't hold up to reason, and the fact that they can't admit that is odd.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't get Gnostic's. It's impossible to know whether god exists or not, their sense of certainty, one way or the other, just doesn't hold up to reason, and the fact that they can't admit that is odd.

Do you mean theists?

A Gnostic is a specific thing that is definitely not allowed inside orthodox Christianity. In fact, I am starting to see some gnostic tendencies arising in atheism of all places.

[Speaker to Animals]

From that Hart essay:

The only really effective antidote to the dreariness of reading the New Atheists, it seems to me, is rereading Nietzsche. How much more immediate and troubling the force of his protest against Christianity seems when compared to theirs, even more than a century after his death. Perhaps his intellectual courage—his willingness to confront the implications of his renunciation of the Christian story of truth and the transcendent good without evasions or retreats—is rather a lot to ask of any other thinker, but it does rather make the atheist chic of today look fairly craven by comparison.

Above all, Nietzsche understood how immense the consequences of the rise of Christianity had been, and how immense the consequences of its decline would be as well, and had the intelligence to know he could not fall back on polite moral certitudes to which he no longer had any right. Just as the Christian revolution created a new sensibility by inverting many of the highest values of the pagan past, so the decline of Christianity, Nietzsche knew, portends another, perhaps equally catastrophic shift in moral and cultural consciousness. His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces God’s death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism. In fact, the madman despairs of the mere atheists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.

Because he understood the nature of what had happened when Christianity entered history with the annunciation of the death of God on the cross, and the elevation of a Jewish peasant above all gods, Nietzsche understood also that the passing of Christian faith permits no return to pagan naivete, and he knew that this monstrous inversion of values created within us a conscience that the older order could never have incubated. He understood also that the death of God beyond us is the death of the human as such within us. If we are, after all, nothing but the fortuitous effects of physical causes, then the will is bound to no rational measure but itself, and who can imagine what sort of world will spring up from so unprecedented and so vertiginously uncertain a vision of reality?

For Nietzsche, therefore, the future that lies before us must be decided, and decided between only two possible paths: a final nihilism, which aspires to nothing beyond the momentary consolations of material contentment, or some great feat of creative will, inspired by a new and truly worldly mythos powerful enough to replace the old and discredited mythos of the Christian revolution (for him, of course, this meant the myth of the Übermensch).

I would humbly add that our answer to the Übermensch is the Blessed Mother, however.

[StCapps]

I don't get Gnostic's. It's impossible to know whether god exists or not, their sense of certainty, one way or the other, just doesn't hold up to reason, and the fact that they can't admit that is odd.

Do you mean theists?

A Gnostic is a specific thing that is definitely not allowed inside orthodox Christianity. In fact, I am starting to see some gnostic tendencies arising in atheism of all places.

Nope I get atheists and theists just fine, and I get agnostics, but gnostics, they baffle the fuck out of me. Fucking weirdos.