Good debate between prominent atheists, Anglican bishops, and Jewish rabbis

[Hume]

I'm sure it's a lot more fun to spend all our time bashing Trump and Melania.

I am not the one that elevated Dawkins to the position of sacred prophet among atheists -- atheists did that. I am working with the material atheists give me.

This seminar was not a bunch of slack jawed American evangelicals. These people were educated British atheists, British Anglicans, British Jews, and their discussions were at the highest levels of discourse and framed by questions about historical truth, scientific truth, literary truth, moral truth, spiritual truth. If this doesn't appeal to you, that's fine, you don't have to visit this thread or watch the video.

Ross Dolan has a good comment: "If there was something he said that you figure WAS important...would you just mention it?"

If you want to talk about atheism there could be a discussion. If you just want to talk about Dawkins, only people who care about Dawkins would engage with you.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't think Dawkins ever really makes a compelling case either, but that's just my opinion. He is a superstar among 21st century atheists and one of their leading spokespersons.

I thought it was interesting that he said the bible shouldn't be any more privileged as a source of wisdom and morality than Greek fables or Tolstoy.

I have my own thoughts on that.

He also has a lot of complaints about the Old Testament, aka Hebrew bible, but the lady rabbi had an interesting response, which is that if you haven't read the Talmud and all the rabbinic literature you are not in a position to say what the old testament means.

It's an excellent point, but like MAGAts, militant atheists take a little bit of truth and twist it into a lie. Given his speeches, many of which I've listened to on youtube such as "the Reason Rally" and the Amazing Meeting conferences. He's the Rush Limbaugh of Atheists throwing out red meat for profit. He's no better or worse than Televangelists selling 50 cent plastic Jesuses to old ladies for a $50 "love donation". /rant

That said, I advise critical thinking and learning from the wisdom of the past be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist or anything else. Extract what's relevant and let the rest go as "a nice story".

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The point to make here is that Greek fables don't really present any visions of an ultimate truth. They are good stories, sometimes with moral lessons. That is why they never displaced the bible or Christianity as a source of higher truth and ultimate justice.

Tolstoy wouldn't be Tolstoy without Christianity.

Disagreed for two reasons; one of which you mentioned: moral lessons. Being moral moves into the area of spirituality. Pure logic often disregards morality.

Consider why terrorists often hijacked Western planes in the 1960s/70s and not USSR airliners. Why? The West would negotiate with them to save the lives of the passengers. The Soviets would simply shoot it down like they did KAL 007. Sacrifice a few hundred to prevent more hijackings. Logical....but not moral according to Western Christian standards.

Second is the dicey idea that there is an "ultimate truth". There isn't, IMO. There's just physics. OTOH, if we consider spirituality, that there is something beyond the physical universe, then other considerations should be made. The Greeks understood this and their fables and tragedies often examined those considerations.

What is Honor? What is behind the idea of the Spartan "come home with your shield or upon it"? Are they not considering that there is an existence beyond the physical where honor and how one lives their life becomes a factor? A form of believing in Karma or an afterlife? Yes, I believe they are considering those "ultimate truths".

 

[Cypress]

Ross Dolan has a good comment: "If there was something he said that you figure WAS important...would you just mention it?"

If you want to talk about atheism there could be a discussion. If you just want to talk about Dawkins, only people who care about Dawkins would engage with you.

I didn't want to invest my time writing an elaborate summary or dissertation of my thoughts, until I was sure people were going to chime in and be interested. There are a lot of threads here with zero responses.

I thought the most interesting questions the seminar framed were:

1) What is historical truth, and can it be found in the bible
2) What actually constitutes historical truth? The atheist historian and the Anglican bishop were at odds here.
3) Is there a distinction between scientific truth and moral truth. Is scientific truth all we care about?
4) What is the agenda with cherry picking quotes from the bible?
5) Why is the Old Testament such a punching bag for atheists
6) Does the Old Testament matter to Christianity. Should we shut our mouths and let Jewish scholars tell us what the OT means?
7) Why doesn't God intervene to stop suffering.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No way I am going to view this thing (I never view these kinds of things that are posted without accompanying comments), but I have never heard Dawkins say anything I thought to be especially logical...or helpful in answering the question: Are there no gods or is there at least one?

If there was something he said that you figure WAS important...would you just mention it?

He's in it for the money. Sure, he probably is an atheist, but like the other three Horsemen of New Atheism, he's militant and actively goes after theists just like Muslims go after Jews or Irish Catholics after British Protestants. For them, it's mostly about geography. Territory. For Dawkins, it's about wealth.

FWIW, I use the term "god" as a place marker for a power behind the creation of our Universe and, probably, the multiverse. For all we know, we're all in the world's greatest simulation. An elaborate videogame.

While the speculation is fun and, as Cypress often does, the discussion aids in learning and expanding our knowledge, discussing atheism and theism is an academic discussion since none of it can be proved.

 

[Hume]

I didn't want to invest my time writing an elaborate summary or dissertation of my thoughts, until I was sure people were going to chime in and be interested. There are a lot of threads here with zero responses.

I thought the most interesting questions the seminar framed were:

1) What is historical truth, and can it be found in the bible
2) What actually constitutes historical truth? The atheist historian and the Anglican bishop were at odds here.
3) Is there a distinction between scientific truth and moral truth. Is scientific truth all we care about?
4) What is the agenda with cherry picking quotes from the bible?
5) Why is the Old Testament such a punching bag for atheists
6) Does the Old Testament matter to Christianity. Should we shut our mouths and let Jewish scholars tell us what the OT means?
7) Why doesn't God intervene to stop suffering.

Okay, I really don't care about the Bible.

 

[Cypress]

Disagreed for two reasons; one of which you mentioned: moral lessons. Being moral moves into the area of spirituality. Pure logic often disregards morality.

Consider why terrorists often hijacked Western planes in the 1960s/70s and not USSR airliners. Why? The West would negotiate with them to save the lives of the passengers. The Soviets would simply shoot it down like they did KAL 007. Sacrifice a few hundred to prevent more hijackings. Logical....but not moral according to Western Christian standards.

Second is the dicey idea that there is an "ultimate truth". There isn't, IMO. There's just physics. OTOH, if we consider spirituality, that there is something beyond the physical universe, then other considerations should be made. The Greeks understood this and their fables and tragedies often examined those considerations.

What is Honor? What is behind the idea of the Spartan "come home with your shield or upon it"? Are they not considering that there is an existence beyond the physical where honor and how one lives their life becomes a factor? A form of believing in Karma or an afterlife? Yes, I believe they are considering those "ultimate truths".

The traditional Spartan/Greek vision of the afterlife was bleak, at best.

I don't know if there is any higher, transcendent truth. Philosophically, I find it cynical and depressing to hold a belief that there is no truth beyond quarks, electrons, and photons. But I have to admit, it is one possibility.

Agreed. Ethos in the Greek in the pre-classical and classical era revolved around honor, maintenance of reputation, marital courage. Life in the here and now is what really mattered. I guess a life live with honor and respect could be considered an ultimate truth. But I don't think it is the kind of ultimate truth that would ever displace the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic doctrines of ultimate truth. And once the traditional old Greek ethos and cosmology faced off against Christianity and Islam, it lost. And it lost big time.

 

[Cypress]

It's an excellent point, but like MAGAts, militant atheists take a little bit of truth and twist it into a lie. Given his speeches, many of which I've listened to on youtube such as "the Reason Rally" and the Amazing Meeting conferences. He's the Rush Limbaugh of Atheists throwing out red meat for profit. He's no better or worse than Televangelists selling 50 cent plastic Jesuses to old ladies for a $50 "love donation". /rant

That said, I advise critical thinking and learning from the wisdom of the past be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist or anything else. Extract what's relevant and let the rest go as "a nice story".

Right, I don't believe The Buddha was actually magically born out of the side of his mother, and able to immediately walk and talk.

 

[Hume]

Ethos in the Greek in the pre-classical and classical era revolved around honor, maintenance of reputation, marital courage. Life in the here and now is what really mattered. I guess a life live with honor and respect could be considered an ultimate truth.

We live in the world. Whatever it is defined as. If you are Christian, you live in that world.

 

[Kafka]

I didn't want to invest my time writing an elaborate summary

Nice dodge. Did that work for you at school? Probably why you couldn't get a PhD.

or dissertation of my thoughts,

Besides it is HIGHLY unlikely you would have any real insight since you almost never seem to understand any of your points except through constant appeals to authority.

So you really did the best you could. You were going to just say what they said. This is easier on you and more on brand.

until I was sure people were going to chime in and be interested.

That's a HUGE lie.

 

[Kafka]

....

 

[Kafka]

Right, I don't believe The Buddha was actually magically born out of the side of his mother, and able to immediately walk and talk.

Why not? You are "agnostic" about the existence of an invisible intelligence beyond space and time despite lacking any real evidence for it.

Why do you dismiss this out of hand?

 

[Kafka]

Okay, I really don't care about the Bible.

YAY! Hume gets to tell us yet ANOTHER thing they don't care about!

Our lives are richer now that the forum's psychopathic hate monger who tells everyone to fuck off even if they agree with Hume has now told us what they don't care about.

Excellent.

 

[Kafka]

We live in the world.

Quick! Someone call WIkiQuote! We have a winner!

Whatever it is defined as. If you are Christian, you live in that world.

Don't you listen to @Cypress???? He's an "agnostic". That's why he has a HUGE list of unevidenced claims he actively DISBELIEVES but one that he holds special and that's "God"

How could you think he's anything but perfectly agnostic?

Have you not read all the AUTHORITIES he's cited???? Have you not appreciated all the BOOKS Cypress has had his mommy buy for him?

If you can't pay closer attention I guess you'll just have to start yelling "Fuck You" at everyone

 

[Kafka]

3) Is there a distinction between scientific truth and moral truth.

What is "moral truth"? Is there any way to independently VERIFY said moral truth?

Is scientific truth all we care about?

Like your point about letting the Jewish scholars tell you what ancient jewish writing means, maybe you should let the scientists explain science to you.

4) What is the agenda with cherry picking quotes from the bible?

Because sometimes quotes speak for themselves. Just because you don't like some of the CLEARLY bad stuff in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't in there.

5) Why is the Old Testament such a punching bag for atheists

A) It is the FIRST PLACE we are introduced to the concept of God.

B) It reads exactly like any other god myth with a fully human "God" who is often petulant and angry and vicious (along with some good qualities)

C) The OT is NOT to be placed aside in Christianity. The Marcionites were HERETICS. Ergo you can't really throw away the OT because it says some things that make you uncomfortable (See more below on Question #6)

D) FINALLY: It speaks authoritatively about GOD and what GOD WANTS. If God is eternal then there's a LOT of explaining necessary as to how a vicious partisan god who commanded genocides over and over again against "others" would suddenly about 2000 years ago change fundamentally and become the god of all people whom he loves without limitation.

6) Does the Old Testament matter to Christianity.

Yes. I understand you are not that familar with Christianity outide the Orthodox church but in Christianity it is generally accepted that the OT lays the groundwork and FORETELLS the coming of the Messiah, Jesus. It is also the home of the 10 Commandments. It is clear you didn't spend much time in church but Psalms are read ALL THE TIME. The book of Job is taught quite commonly. The stories in the OT really DO form a basic cultural "touchstone" as you like to say for western civilization. I'm surprised you aren't more familiar with those stories.

Should we shut our mouths and let Jewish scholars tell us what the OT means?

I'm down with that. It certainly helps explain a lot of things. It doesn't really explain the non-stop genocides and murders commanded or facilitated by God clearly in the BIble, but it certainly helps explain some of the more difficult to understand passages.

7) Why doesn't God intervene to stop suffering.

Either God doesn't exist or God is somehow CONSTRAINED on the universe he created (a la Dr. Pangloss and Leibniz) OR God values pain and suffeirng.

I vote for Choice #1 because it is the least offensive and least theologically problematic.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The traditional Spartan/Greek vision of the afterlife was bleak, at best.

I don't know if there is any higher, transcendent truth. Philosophically, I find it cynical and depressing to hold a belief that there is no truth beyond quarks, electrons, and photons. But I have to admit, it is one possibility.

Agreed. Ethos in the Greek in the pre-classical and classical era revolved around honor, maintenance of reputation, marital courage. Life in the here and now is what really mattered. I guess a life live with honor and respect could be considered an ultimate truth. But I don't think it is the kind of ultimate truth that would ever displace the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic doctrines of ultimate truth. And once the traditional old Greek ethos and cosmology faced off against Christianity and Islam, it lost. And it lost big time.

Truth = reality = facts Using what's inside the Universe to learn what's outside seems to be a fruitless activity unless one is a quantum physicist, which I'm not and never shall be. There is no evidence any human can perceive what "lies beyond" the physical universe, ergo, we're stuck with learning only what truths lie within the universe. I accept that as fact and go from there.

I believe there is a "higher, transcendent truth", but accept it's beyond my grasp in the mortal realm. Ergo, being a realist, I focus upon what I can do and let go of what I can't.

Agreed on the Grecian ethos. Ancient Greece is often considered the origin of Western philosophy albeit coupled with some Eastern philosophy courtesy of the Silk Road and Jesus.

Disagreed that any religion has a monopoly on an ultimate truth. They clearly have human wisdom covering spans of thousands of years. Human wisdom is probably not the same as an alien civilization's wisdom even though we would both exist within the same physical universe and bound by the same universal physical rules. What is true, meaning what works, for one species, is not necessarily true for another.

Example: MAGAts, via Evangelists, consider the human family to be a "universal truth"; Male, as husband/father, is dominant, female, as wife/mother, subservient. Children to be seen and not heard. That doesn't even work for all humans much less a species that lays eggs by the hundreds like fish.

 

[Cypress]

Truth = reality = facts Using what's inside the Universe to learn what's outside seems to be a fruitless activity unless one is a quantum physicist, which I'm not and never shall be. There is no evidence any human can perceive what "lies beyond" the physical universe, ergo, we're stuck with learning only what truths lie within the universe. I accept that as fact and go from there.

I believe there is a "higher, transcendent truth", but accept it's beyond my grasp in the mortal realm. Ergo, being a realist, I focus upon what I can do and let go of what I can't.

Agreed on the Grecian ethos. Ancient Greece is often considered the origin of Western philosophy albeit coupled with some Eastern philosophy courtesy of the Silk Road and Jesus.

Disagreed that any religion has a monopoly on an ultimate truth. They clearly have human wisdom covering spans of thousands of years. Human wisdom is probably not the same as an alien civilization's wisdom even though we would both exist within the same physical universe and bound by the same universal physical rules. What is true, meaning what works, for one species, is not necessarily true for another.

Example: MAGAts, via Evangelists, consider the human family to be a "universal truth"; Male, as husband/father, is dominant, female, as wife/mother, subservient. Children to be seen and not heard. That doesn't even work for all humans much less a species that lays eggs by the hundreds like fish.

Thanks for the thoughts.

I don't agree that we cannot percieve anything that is not physical.

Mathematics, the mathmatical laws of physics, the universal physical constants have no manifest physical presence in and of themselves, but provide the scaffolding that physical reality is perched upon.

So as for me, I am perfectly willing to believe there can be a reality that does not exist physically.

I agree that no religion has dibs on a universal true.

I agree that a transcendent ultimate truth as conceived by Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc. cannot be empirically proven

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Okay, I really don't care about the Bible.

This supports why I know you
1. have a feminine personality
2. lack a college education
3. lack maturity

Ergo, you're a female teenager or a person with a teenage female mind.

 

[Cypress]

He's in it for the money. Sure, he probably is an atheist, but like the other three Horsemen of New Atheism, he's militant and actively goes after theists just like Muslims go after Jews or Irish Catholics after British Protestants. For them, it's mostly about geography. Territory. For Dawkins, it's about wealth.

FWIW, I use the term "god" as a place marker for a power behind the creation of our Universe and, probably, the multiverse. For all we know, we're all in the world's greatest simulation. An elaborate videogame.

While the speculation is fun and, as Cypress often does, the discussion aids in learning and expanding our knowledge, discussing atheism and theism is an academic discussion since none of it can be proved.

I've seen philosophers use the rules of logic to deduce there is a 20 percent chance we are living in a computer simulation.

Dawkins obviously has a financial motivation to be so militant in his writing and public presentation. But when you get right down to it, he is glad he grew up in a country framed by the Anglican Christian tradition, rather than one having the Hindu, Buddhist, or Islamic tradition; he has openly confessed to being a cultural Anglican or secular Christian.

 

[anonymoose]

This supports why I know you
1. have a feminine personality
2. lack a college education
3. lack maturity

Ergo, you're a female teenager or a person with a teenage female mind.

I don't get why she presented herself as female when posting as BidenPresident and male when posting as Hume. Regardless she's an odd one.