Religions > Atheism > Does Christopher A. Lee Bother To Read Scot McDermid's Posts?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2004 10:05:11 PM |
| Object: |
Does Christopher A. Lee Bother To Read Scot McDermid's Posts? |
I have, with some interest, been reading the thread titled "Does
Christopher Lee hate mankind?", particularly the posts going back and
forth between Christopher and Scot McDermid:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=5a7tc.55333%24cz5.21092168%40news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net
Scot is trying to explain that theistic claims like "God exists" are,
regardless of whether they actually reflect reality or not, assertions
about reality, and not merely something that exists in the theistic
domain. In a recent post, Scot wrote:
Claims about reality are ABOUT reality. If the claims are TRUE
then they are true. If the claims are FALSE then they are false
but they are still ABOUT reality. You presume that theistic
claim "do not a priori automatically apply outside their theism.
Period." For some reason you believe that their claims ABOUT
reality are not actually ABOUT reality.
Christopher totally misses the point, and a short while later responds
with:
BEFORE THEY CAN BE CLAIMS ABOUT REALITY, THE PERSON MAKING THEM
HAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS MORE THAN JUST HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF,
WHICH INCLUDES COMING UP WITH A COHERENT DEFINITION FOR WHATEVER
IT IS HE'S MAKING HIS CLAIM ABOUT, AND REASONS TO MAKE THAT CLAIM.
Until he does that it remains merely his religious belief.
I would agree that a coherent definition is necessary. But once that
is done, there is a real difference between saying "Santa exists" and
"gfdsdfd1234 exists". The funny thing is the first line, that before
the claim can be a claim about reality, it has to be demonstrated that
it is more than just a religious belief. Think about how circular this
is. I take it that Christopher means before a theist can claim "God
exists" is true, they must prove that God exists outside of their
delusions. Actually, they first claim "God exists," and then
(hopefully) attempt to prove that the claim is actually true.
So, contrary to Christopher's claim, one does not have to prove that
an assertion reflects reality before making the relevant assertion
about reality. One makes an assertion about reality and then attempts
to demonstrate that this assertion about reality is true (or they
could lay out the argument and conclude with a claim about reality, a
concluded claim that may or may not follow from the argument).
After that, Christopher simply unpacked his suitcase of red herrings,
ad hominems, and trusty cuss-words (exempli gratia: in a single post,
Christopher called Scot "fucking stupid," "a fucking idiot," and "a
fucking moron" twice each, and "a fucking liar" once).
But to move away from all this, why can't Christopher come to a
sensible definition of God. Bertrand Russell was able to come to an
agreed upon definition of God in his debate with Copleston, and many
other atheists have been able to do so in debates with theists as
well. How about "a personal agent that created the universe"? Is that
simple enough? Or is even this too problematic for Christopher to
engage in a discussion with a person who wishes to argue that this
being does or does not exist in reality?
.
|
|
| User: "Spooked " |
|
| Title: Re: Does Christopher A. Lee Bother To Read Scot McDermid's Posts? |
07 Jun 2004 10:27:08 PM |
|
|
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
So, contrary to Christopher's claim, one does not have to prove that
an assertion reflects reality before making the relevant assertion
about reality. One makes an assertion about reality and then attempts
to demonstrate that this assertion about reality is true (or they
could lay out the argument and conclude with a claim about reality, a
concluded claim that may or may not follow from the argument).
That's only because some people place too much value in their own
fantasies. Religious or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
