timschochet
Footballguy
As I wrote, I don't have any.
Except- and it may not be related- where does reconciliation come from?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Except- and it may not be related- where does reconciliation come from?
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
1974 Congressional Committee and Impoundment Act or something like that. It was geared towards the Senate the ability of legislation to get through the process without being killed with endless debate and amendments that had nothing to do with the original law. Senator Byrd ended up getting a few new rules attached to it in the 80's as well.
It's one of those things that was put in place because at the time, the process was just too slow. We love laws it seems that stop things from going slow. Apparantly slow is bad. Legislation that moves through the Congress quickly is much much better.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/05/politics/conservative-coup-attempt-grows/
Conservatives continuing to attempt to oust Boehner. Along with Gohmert, there's Yoho and possibly one other. FreedomWorks is insistent upon removing Boehner.
I think this is all talk though. Republicans have to know that either Gohmert or Yoho would be a complete embarrassment for them. Gohmert has made one incredibly absurd comment after another: his rhetoric is beyond Michelle Bachmann crazy. He is a Birther, he believes Obama is a Muslim, and possibly the antichrist. Yoho, in the fall of 2013, demonstrated his lack of knowledge by stating that not raising the debt ceiling would "stabilize the world economy." I mean, really GOP? You're seriously considering either of these two bozos to be Speaker of the House? I just can't believe it would ever happen.
Conservatives continuing to attempt to oust Boehner. Along with Gohmert, there's Yoho and possibly one other. FreedomWorks is insistent upon removing Boehner.
I think this is all talk though. Republicans have to know that either Gohmert or Yoho would be a complete embarrassment for them. Gohmert has made one incredibly absurd comment after another: his rhetoric is beyond Michelle Bachmann crazy. He is a Birther, he believes Obama is a Muslim, and possibly the antichrist. Yoho, in the fall of 2013, demonstrated his lack of knowledge by stating that not raising the debt ceiling would "stabilize the world economy." I mean, really GOP? You're seriously considering either of these two bozos to be Speaker of the House? I just can't believe it would ever happen.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
The best part is the complete and total immunity that representatives and Senators have when they are traveling to a session. It was vitally important to the founders that the men who were going to be in Congress physically get there. This of course comes from the history of the colonies when colonial representatives were arrested by the crown for having the audacity to try to take part in some kind of legislative process.
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think it would be smart for both parties to start picking their Congressional leaders as national leaders, spokesmen with appeal. It still seems based on some kind of internal abilities or legislative skills that we don't understand or aren't privy to. This would also go a long way to improving Congressional popularity IMO.
timschochet
Footballguy
From the New York Times today:
The House will also take up a measure that would change the new health care law’s definition of full-time workers to those working 40 hours rather than the current 30 hours — another proposal that has drawn backing from Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate.
I'm starting to feel very good about my bet with tommyboy. If they're willing to do this, then that means they're likely NOT going to pass a law that would repeal Obamacare; especially since they know that would be for show anyhow. It would be filibustered and might not even get to Obama's desk. In the struggle between grass roots conservatives and the more moderate establishment leaders of the GOP, the latter appear to be winning- for now.
I'm wondering if President Obama would veto this bill. Thoughts?
The House will also take up a measure that would change the new health care law’s definition of full-time workers to those working 40 hours rather than the current 30 hours — another proposal that has drawn backing from Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate.
I'm starting to feel very good about my bet with tommyboy. If they're willing to do this, then that means they're likely NOT going to pass a law that would repeal Obamacare; especially since they know that would be for show anyhow. It would be filibustered and might not even get to Obama's desk. In the struggle between grass roots conservatives and the more moderate establishment leaders of the GOP, the latter appear to be winning- for now.
I'm wondering if President Obama would veto this bill. Thoughts?
Gawain
Footballguy
No, if someone makes the claims that the world's biggest bandwagoner did in the OP, they need to back them up.
The god pras went well beyond an X-mas tree on public ground.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is an interesting idea. I don't think I can agree with you. First I doubt it actually would have an impact on popularity. Second, these guys kind of need to know the nuts and bolts.
I believe the reason for the unpopularity of Congress is that there is a significant divide between the two political parties, preventing agreement on most issues. The uninterested public doesn't know or care the reason for this divide.
timschochet
Footballguy
Why does somebody ever need to "back up" a claim about God? And how would you propose they do so?
Sure, it might have been better (and more correct) for the OP of that thread to state "Here's what I believe" before making the pronouncement that God chose to save that little girl. But of course we all know it's a subjective belief anyhow. Would it really have made any difference? Would it have saved the OP from ridicule? I doubt it.
And when you say he went "way beyond an Xmas tree on public ground" what are you talking about anyhow? Are you honestly suggesting that somebody offering an opinion on a message board is somehow an infringement upon your rights?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I saw something on the ABC talking heads news show on Sunday morning (name?) that I thought was kind of disturbing. Rep. Debbie Dingell, the wife of the longtime Rep (also disturbing, oh hey the longest serving Rep finally leaves office annnnddd... he's replaced with his wife) was on the show and she was asked how she would vote on the Keystone pipeline. She said she would have to wait to hear what the president told her and her fellow Reps. She didn't have an opinion, no feelings about environmental protection or jobs or ecology or global warming or the economy or the price of gas, no she just has to wait for the president.
If Congress could figure out a way to have party leaders who spoke to the American people in a way that was appealing - like presidential candidates almost - that might go a long way towards gaining popular support for measures. Right now the President is the only one with that kind of national identity.
Congressional approval actually started to climb in the 90s, not just because things were pretty good, but also because there was a Newt Gingrich with whom people could identify Congress. I realize Newt is not a super-popular guy but he was a national figure with a national agenda that he sought to get a GOPCongress elected on. The leaders we have now are seemingly caught up in internecine battles.
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/CongressBushApproval112007Graph2.gif
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think you guys are underrating Art. I, sec. 7. Personally I think there are executive orders and Senate bills that authorize taxes which are not originating out of the House.
For instance didn't the ACA mandate tax originate out of the Senate? Doesn't that make it unconstitutional?
Pretty sure it was challenged on that on that and lost. Forget the scheme they used to get around that. I think the court ruled since the primary purpose was not to raise revenues, they let it stand.
timschochet
Footballguy
Saints, your article in the Hillary thread leads to a fascinating question: if Hillary chose NOT to run, who then would be the favorite in what would no doubt be a wide open race? I don't think it would be Warren; she is considered too liberal for most mainstream Democrats. Cuomo has some popularity back east but I don't know how he plays in the rest of the country. Jim Webb might be an interesting candidate, as would Corey Booker if he decided to jump in. Biden lacks the "gravitas" to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate, IMO.
Don't get me wrong; I believe Hillary WILL run, and barring an extremely unlikely chain of events, win both the nomination and the Presidency. But if she doesn't run I have no idea who will be our next President.
Don't get me wrong; I believe Hillary WILL run, and barring an extremely unlikely chain of events, win both the nomination and the Presidency. But if she doesn't run I have no idea who will be our next President.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I'd say Warren or Biden.
I love Booker, personally, I wish he could have been mayor of NO, love what he did in Newark; but Obama's gifts have yet to be found in a let's say more "traditional" African-American candidate.
I also like Webb and think he can be a very dangerous candidate for Hillary especially but he doesn't seem to have the charisma or national name.
Last edited by a moderator:
The DC circuit, 3 judge panel, reviewed this case. It could still go to the Supreme Court. I should have followed this case a bit closer. I had drinks with one of those judges a little after that ruling. Would have been an interesting topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Wow that is something in its own right. - I realize that certain modern views have made it so that presidents can create new law via executive order and every single cent of spending and taxing does not have to originate out of and be approved by Congress in every single instance. I am constantly reminded how jurisprudence has carved out this exception and that loophole big enough to drive trucks through in comparison. The same thing has happened with the 2nd & 4th Amendments and other places. A case allows it in 1969 or whenever and then suddenly hey that's the law, even if it's not what's strictly authorized by the USC.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gawain
Footballguy
Back up a claim that this girl surviving and her family dying was some sort of plan? I expect that person to be able to state that god wanted the rest of the family or to realize the logical inconsistency of their position.
The belief isn't what draws the biggest ridicule it's the inherent duplicity in giving glory to god for one person dying while ignoring the other dead people. It also minimizes the girl's actions saying that she didn't keep herself alive, but that regardless of what she did after the plane crash she was somehow predestined to survive.
Xmas tree on public ground is the proverbial example of angry atheist. The story here was presented in a much more direct fashion intended to rub anyone who didn't believe in the Abrahamic God the wrong way and drew ire from people who roll their eyes at arguments over mangers and menorahs.
timschochet
Footballguy
I really have to disagree. It's hardly unusual for religious people to credit God with their good fortune while ignoring the ill fortune of others. Currently there is a Hollywood movie (Unbroken) which is centered around this theme. It's illogical IMO, but so is belief in God in the first place. For you to see this as some sort of in your face attack makes little sense to me.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
And yet it is that belief (faith) that carries a Louie Zamperelli through what the Japanese inflicted upon him. Has God not delivered him? Alternatively look at Elie Wiesel in NIght, he does a good job of explaining how God can be present through or despite and even after horrible things have transpired.
What story does atheism offer on that front? Marxism? See how that turned out, death camps, starvation, the death of the self, a living death. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.
I would add it is a strawman to suggest that praying for one's self or loved ones means that one is praying or must pray for others to suffer or that God wishes it so. I don't think there's a rabbi or priest in the world that would buy that false premise.
- ETA - I responded to Tim, but I think it was Gawain's comment that I was really responding to.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Saints, your response to Gawain is IMO just as flawed as his comments. You wrote, with great irony (though you apparently didn't realize it
I would add it is a strawman to suggest that praying for one's self or loved ones means that one is praying or must pray for others to suffer or that God wishes it so. I don't think there's a rabbi or priest in the world that would buy that false premise.
It certainly is a strawman- one that you created, hence the irony. Not a single person that I read in the other thread actually suggested that one is praying for others to suffer. They simply are asking, with some justification, why God would pick and choose. (Incidentally this is also of course the flaw in Unbroken- let's assume that of the thousands of POWs under Japanese rule, at least a good portion were religious who begged God to help them survive and promised to serve God if they did survive. Yet most of them perished anyhow. And I would argue, though there's no way that I can prove it, that the proportion of religious POWs who begged for God's help to survive, that DID survive, was no greater than the proportion of non-religious POWs who survived.)
You also wrote:
What story does atheism offer on that front? Marxism? See how that turned out, death camps, starvation, the death of the self, a living death. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.
I gotta tell you that connecting atheism to Marxism, and from there to the brutalities of 20th century Communism, is pretty damn offensive to most atheists and secularists. It was offensive when Ben Stein did it in that awful movie about Intelligent Design, and it's offensive now. To answer your question, I agree that most people need an explanation to help them deal with the horrific reality of life at times. Atheism does not offer that which is why it will never be as popular as religion. That doesn't make it any less true.
I would add it is a strawman to suggest that praying for one's self or loved ones means that one is praying or must pray for others to suffer or that God wishes it so. I don't think there's a rabbi or priest in the world that would buy that false premise.
It certainly is a strawman- one that you created, hence the irony. Not a single person that I read in the other thread actually suggested that one is praying for others to suffer. They simply are asking, with some justification, why God would pick and choose. (Incidentally this is also of course the flaw in Unbroken- let's assume that of the thousands of POWs under Japanese rule, at least a good portion were religious who begged God to help them survive and promised to serve God if they did survive. Yet most of them perished anyhow. And I would argue, though there's no way that I can prove it, that the proportion of religious POWs who begged for God's help to survive, that DID survive, was no greater than the proportion of non-religious POWs who survived.)
You also wrote:
What story does atheism offer on that front? Marxism? See how that turned out, death camps, starvation, the death of the self, a living death. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.
I gotta tell you that connecting atheism to Marxism, and from there to the brutalities of 20th century Communism, is pretty damn offensive to most atheists and secularists. It was offensive when Ben Stein did it in that awful movie about Intelligent Design, and it's offensive now. To answer your question, I agree that most people need an explanation to help them deal with the horrific reality of life at times. Atheism does not offer that which is why it will never be as popular as religion. That doesn't make it any less true.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
On the first point, I will say that I did not read the other thread on this issue. But what you say is essentially a nullification argument, that because prayers were not answered there then they must not have been answered here. I don't think that applies. Arguably, Faith is the Love of the Will of God. I think Wiesel addressed these issues better, let's remember that Hillebrand is not exactly a historian, she is a dramatist, and what she is echoing is purely one man's story and one's man's faith. The State of Israel has more Jewish people in it than in all of Germany now. Wiesel survived to tell his tale and so does the tale of those who passed beside him. Zamperelli survived to tell his tale and now the tale of all the dead have been told, except in the respect that they did not survive, but their memories did. I am not sure that God operates on the same scale that we do, in fact by definition He must not. He exists in the infinite, we exist in the finite.Saints, your response to Gawain is IMO just as flawed as his comments. You wrote, with great irony (though you apparently didn't realize it
I would add it is a strawman to suggest that praying for one's self or loved ones means that one is praying or must pray for others to suffer or that God wishes it so. I don't think there's a rabbi or priest in the world that would buy that false premise.
It certainly is a strawman- one that you created, hence the irony. Not a single person that I read in the other thread actually suggested that one is praying for others to suffer. They simply are asking, with some justification, why God would pick and choose. (Incidentally this is also of course the flaw in Unbroken- let's assume that of the thousands of POWs under Japanese rule, at least a good portion were religious who begged God to help them survive and promised to serve God if they did survive. Yet most of them perished anyhow. And I would argue, though there's no way that I can prove it, that the proportion of religious POWs who begged for God's help to survive, that DID survive, was no greater than the proportion of non-religious POWs who survived.)
You also wrote:
What story does atheism offer on that front? Marxism? See how that turned out, death camps, starvation, the death of the self, a living death. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.
I gotta tell you that connecting atheism to Marxism, and from there to the brutalities of 20th century Communism, is pretty damn offensive to most atheists and secularists. It was offensive when Ben Stein did it in that awful movie about Intelligent Design, and it's offensive now. To answer your question, I agree that most people need an explanation to help them deal with the horrific reality of life at times. Atheism does not offer that which is why it will never be as popular as religion. That doesn't make it any less true.
Hm, on the 2nd point, are atheists offended or Marxists, or both? It shouldn't be offensive as it is a statement of fact, Marx may not have intended it but his comments on religion (truly well stated) were used to implement a world of atheistic statism replacing religion. The results have been truly horrific, and continue to be.
(Btw look not getting all religious on you, I don't know if I am religious, this is inherently a theological discussion, that's all).
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I need to correct you on one point- when you state that there are more Jews now in Israel than In all of Germany, that's irrelevant. There were never a lot of Jews in Germany. Most of the Jews who died in the Holocaust were found in other parts of eastern Europe. There are NOT more Jews in Israel than there were in eastern Europe prior to 1941.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Very fair. Actually I thought about changing that while I wrote it. I thought of changing it to "Europe" today for instance. I may have been thinking of the epilogue in Schindler's List where they explain the number of
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Interesting points Saints. I still disagree with you about the connection between atheist and Marxism, but it's not really pertinent to the discussion.
I should clarify again that I don't disagree with the main argument being made by secularists in the other thread- it is inconsistent that God is involved when good things happen but not involved when bad things happen- your point that God has a larger plan is a separate argument, which is more logically compelling, but is still flawed in many ways IMO. (The basic flaw being that I can't see the historical benefit to most of the terrible things that occurred in the last century, and I don't think I'll ever be convinced otherwise.)
My main issue with the atheists/secularists in the other thread is not the substance of their argument but their need to deliver it, and their continual contempt for religious people. jon mx is correct in this instance: there is much more "in your face" atheism in this forum than there is Christianity or any other religion. Atheists are not thought of well in this country, unfortunately. I honestly believe that at this point in our history it is almost easier to be "out" as a homosexual than to be "out" as an atheist. And this constant need of atheists, here and elsewhere, to be so confrontational, to insult religious people at every opportunity, really isn't helping.
I should clarify again that I don't disagree with the main argument being made by secularists in the other thread- it is inconsistent that God is involved when good things happen but not involved when bad things happen- your point that God has a larger plan is a separate argument, which is more logically compelling, but is still flawed in many ways IMO. (The basic flaw being that I can't see the historical benefit to most of the terrible things that occurred in the last century, and I don't think I'll ever be convinced otherwise.)
My main issue with the atheists/secularists in the other thread is not the substance of their argument but their need to deliver it, and their continual contempt for religious people. jon mx is correct in this instance: there is much more "in your face" atheism in this forum than there is Christianity or any other religion. Atheists are not thought of well in this country, unfortunately. I honestly believe that at this point in our history it is almost easier to be "out" as a homosexual than to be "out" as an atheist. And this constant need of atheists, here and elsewhere, to be so confrontational, to insult religious people at every opportunity, really isn't helping.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree the other stuff is interesting but not pertinent.
I confess I don't read all the threads, I haven't delved into that one.
The world today is odd, I think what we see is people very comfortable and enshrouded in their technology. In the days when there was no electricity, no internet, no tv, etc., some people were perhaps religious out of fear or superstition. How deep was their conviction? Now people seem to reject traditional concepts - like the Constitution, like natural law, like religion, and many institutions - because they feel "free". Is their conviction any different, any deeper than those who once prayed out of superstition? I doubt it.
But put them on that plane in the shoes of that 7 year old and watch them pray, harder, faster, more convincingly than a 12th century monk at evening vespers.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
which posts in the other thread did you think were 'insulting'? not saying there weren't any.
timschochet
Footballguy
Sounds like the Rams are really coming back to Los Angeles- coming to Inglewood, in fact:
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/12125028/project-nfl-stadium-los-angeles-going-forward
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/12125028/project-nfl-stadium-los-angeles-going-forward
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't want to quote them. And it's not just the other thread either. Every time there is a religious discussion in this forum, the same few people (I mentioned two of them but there are more) come in and insult religious people. It's pretty ugly. In this case those who were being religious did attack atheism; they simply asserted their belief that God had a hand in saving the little girl. For that they were ridiculed and held to contempt.
joffer
Footballguy
trying to determine what you think constitutes an insult. The OP new exactly the reaction he'd get with that post. Do you think one of the outspoken atheists on this board would start a thread about that story and finish it with "and a God had absolutely nothing to do with it"?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
As to your question, I'll paraphrase a former SC Justice and say that I know an insult when I read it.
To your point, I addressed this before: it is VERY typical of religious people to credit good results to God. I don't believe that the OP meant to "stick it" to atheists with his post. He was simply stating something that a lot of religious people believe every time somebody's life is saved. I don't think your analogy is valid.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
With all due respect to the poster who I generally enjoy, I'd say ...
Also, it's funny, isn't Curly from Persian/Iranian background? I don't think he's particularly "religious" but it's funny to me how this conversation seemed to be taking place in the usual Christianity/atheism context, but please by all means someone bring up Allah or Mohammed directly and denigrate that and see how it goes here.
...is fairly "insulting."
Also, it's funny, isn't Curly from Persian/Iranian background? I don't think he's particularly "religious" but it's funny to me how this conversation seemed to be taking place in the usual Christianity/atheism context, but please by all means someone bring up Allah or Mohammed directly and denigrate that and see how it goes here.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
It's an interesting article and Plantinga's arguments are very similar to other religious intellectual types (like Dennis Praeger for example.) I disagree with most of it. If I have time, I'll break it down later on.
joffer
Footballguy
nor do I. But I think he knew exactly how the thread would turn out.And it wasn't an analogy, it was a question. Have you ever seen a thread on this board start like that?
joffer
Footballguy
absolutely agree that is insulting. But that and maybe one other were the only ones that I saw.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Well I'll say this about that, and not delve into the thread itself.
Mat re-posted several queries here.
And that didn't include the original one in post 3 above.
But I guess what gets me is that Curly posted a news story and as Fat nick points out here the thread became mostly about attributing good/bad things to God or not.
Now, I love the question philosophically, it's great stuff over beers, but Curly pretty much just made a comment about how he felt in his OP, did he really deserve to have his point about God addressed and examined and poked about, fairly or not? Let someone say their piece about God and respect it, let it go, and talk about the plane and the child's amazing survival.
joffer
Footballguy
Did he deserve it? Not sure that's the word I would use. If he's going to put it out there, I wouldn't call questions about the statements' logic or rationality 'insulting'. Religion seems to be the only area where it's taboo to question beliefs.
joffer
Footballguy
I wouldn't say it's taboo to question someone's beliefs on raceI wouldn't say it's taboo to question someone's beliefs on sexuality
Don and Dawn don't rhyme.
Gawain
Footballguy
As Joffer stated, if an atheist posted that story and tacked on a "classic case where a loving God doesn't leave a poor girl all alone," the statement would be clearly viewed as a religious attack.
As tim alluded to, atheists are the most distrusted minority in America now. At the least, I think this instance is analogous to the "good for you, I'm a Christian" comment that irked tim.
At the worst, I think asking atheists not to respond to a comment such as this is similar to telling NA not to be offended by the Redskins or telling AA not to be upset about racial profiling.
A person doesn't have to accept attacks on their beliefs, person or character because they are in the minority.
ETA: I'm fairly sure that curly is a she from the NBA and suicide thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, let's break down the article that Saints posted. There's a lot to cover:
Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?
Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.
Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.
In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.
So what Platinga is essentially saying here is that even if one rejects all of the philosophical arguments for God's existence (there are, at last count, 36 of them; I listed them all and discussed them in a previous thread); at best that leads to agnosticism, not to atheism. This argument is part of the insistence by religious people, in these sorts of debates, to insist on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Apparently by forcing well known atheists like Richard Dawkins to admit that they are actually agnostics, that gives religious belief more clout for some reason.
But to most of us who call ourselves atheists, it's an insignificant distinction. You want me to admit that, instead of being 100% sure there is no God, I am 99.9999% sure? Fine. Does that make me, technically, an agnostic rather than an atheist? Fine. Does being an agnostic therefore mean that I'm uncertain? No, because 99.9999% is enough for certainty.
As a matter of fact, I could and have made "positive" arguments for atheism, separate and distinct from merely rejecting arguments for theism. But I won't repeat them here, because I reject Platinga's thesis here that it's not enough to argue against theism. I say it IS enough for me, and it's probably more than enough for those philosophers.
Gary Gutting: A recent survey by PhilPapers, the online philosophy index, says that 62 percent of philosophers are atheists (with another 11 percent “inclined” to the view). Do you think the philosophical literature provides critiques of theism strong enough to warrant their views? Or do you think philosophers’ atheism is due to factors other than rational analysis?
Alvin Plantinga: If 62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. (I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions.) Do philosophers know something here that these other academics don’t know? What could it be? Philosophers, as opposed to other academics, are often professionally concerned with the theistic arguments — arguments for the existence of God. My guess is that a considerable majority of philosophers, both believers and unbelievers, reject these arguments as unsound.
Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!’” But lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.
In the same way, the failure of the theistic arguments, if indeed they do fail, might conceivably be good grounds for agnosticism, but not for atheism. Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence.
So what Platinga is essentially saying here is that even if one rejects all of the philosophical arguments for God's existence (there are, at last count, 36 of them; I listed them all and discussed them in a previous thread); at best that leads to agnosticism, not to atheism. This argument is part of the insistence by religious people, in these sorts of debates, to insist on the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Apparently by forcing well known atheists like Richard Dawkins to admit that they are actually agnostics, that gives religious belief more clout for some reason.
But to most of us who call ourselves atheists, it's an insignificant distinction. You want me to admit that, instead of being 100% sure there is no God, I am 99.9999% sure? Fine. Does that make me, technically, an agnostic rather than an atheist? Fine. Does being an agnostic therefore mean that I'm uncertain? No, because 99.9999% is enough for certainty.
As a matter of fact, I could and have made "positive" arguments for atheism, separate and distinct from merely rejecting arguments for theism. But I won't repeat them here, because I reject Platinga's thesis here that it's not enough to argue against theism. I say it IS enough for me, and it's probably more than enough for those philosophers.
timschochet
Footballguy
For anyone interested, here is a link to the 36 philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Critiques and flaws are included.
http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/authors/goldstein/36%20Arguments.pdf
http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/authors/goldstein/36%20Arguments.pdf
Similar threads
