Harris Vs Sullivan - Atheism vs Catholocism

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sullivan would just say, "You are correct. All your points are valid. However, God is love, and I know it inside of me to be true."

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not uncommon for moderates to admit such things. In this debate with Christopher Hitchens and Tim Russert, Russert (a religious moderate) basically admits his faith is totally irrational about half way through. Religious moderation is so intellectually bankrupt. Sam Harris thinks it is a matter of partition in the human mind that allows an otherwise intelligent person to believe such ludicrous things.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. the other debater isnt tim russert, its john meecham. Russert is the moderator/host.

[hexag1]

zeejustin,
Have you read Harris's book The End of Faith?
Have your readi Hitchen's book?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Children can not & are not atheists. Jesus promised children eternal life if they die before they are intellectually mature. They haven't denied the existence of God as Atheists do. Any contortion of that is baloney & is completely false. Why would God accept an atheist into the kingdom of heaven??


[/ QUOTE ]

jesus said all children go to heaven
no atheists go to heaven
therefore
no children are atheists.

why else would he include the last sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, his logic is more like this:

Definition of atheist: Someone who doesn't go to heaven when they die.

Babies go to heaven.

Therefore, babies aren't atheists.

It all stems from his f'd up definition of what an atheist is.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In My Last Post I referred to The debate between Andrew Sullivan and Sam Harris.. Harris is an atheist. Sullivan is a Catholic.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of fluff, particularly in the first half. Skip straight to Part Two if you basically just want the conclusions they draw.

It really seems to me that the atheist won, or rather the theist conceded, and even Andrew Sullivan (the theist), acknowledged that.

(Edit: I really liked this quote from Harris: "I now feel like a tennis player, in mid-serve, who notices that his opponent is no longer holding a racket.")

Harris basically would say, "you claim that your beliefs are founded on x, y, and z. X is not true. Y does not justify your beliefs, and Z actually justifies my beliefs more than yours. How do you respond?"

Sullivan would just say, "You are correct. All your points are valid. However, God is love, and I know it inside of me to be true."

Sorry, but you lose.

The most ridiculous part of Sullivan's argument was that he justified his beliefs, and the debate itself by saying that the atheist is too confident. He then talked about how he had both humility and doubt in his beliefs, and accepted that other's might indeed be right. He then later stated, unambiguously, that he has NEVER doubted that God exists. Furthermore, his only defense seemed to be that he knows for sure he is right. Why is it that atheists have the stigma (stereotype a better word perhaps?) of being the unreasonably confident ones?

He even stated that logically, his opponent was right, and many readers will probably acknowledge that he lost the debate, however, the debate only strengthened his beliefs, similar to the way that his homosexuality strengthens his belief in Catholicism.

I am baffled at how this intelligent person can take EVERYTHING as a sign that he is right, no matter how illogical, ridiculous, or based upon pure evil it is.

Despite the fact that this baffles me, this seems to be a very common dialog between atheists and theists, although I think Harris did a good job of getting Sullivan to stop "beating around the bush" and acknowledge his points.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Sullivan basically acknowledged that Harris won the argument, I'm confused why this really interests you or what you want to discuss.

If I was trying to convince someone why the free market was better than the regulated market, and he said "Y'know, I guess I agree and can't really argue otherwise... but for some inexplicable reason I just feel more comfortable when it's regulated" then that's just the way he feels. I'd shrug and say OK, and accept that he has something that I would consider an inefficient comfort. Nothing more to see here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are missing the point. Even religious people believe that a newborn is not smart enough to comprehend the idea of a God. Therefore, he is atheist (by at least one of the definitions of the word) for at least some short portion of his life.

Whether or not he goes to heaven is not relevant to Zeno's point.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, you are missing the point & it's very relavent. Children can not & are not atheists. Jesus promised children eternal life if they die before they are intellectually mature. They haven't denied the existence of God as Atheists do. Any contortion of that is baloney & is completely false. Why would God accept an atheist into the kingdom of heaven??

ZJ, aren't you that guy who cheated a bunch of folks in some online tournaments?? Say...do you know Dutch Boyd. Maybe you two should get together & compare notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

all children are born theists? or Christians specifically?

either way, it's absurd. it doesn't even make sense...all children are born atheists...all that that means is that, when they are born, they do not, at that moment, hold a belief in a god or gods..do you actually deny this?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, he's thinking

all atheists deny the existence of god.
no infants deny the existence of god.
therefore
no infants are atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, in that case...standard, I suppose

we really need a distinct word for someone who makes the claim that there is no god or gods. It sucks that this needs to be cleared up at the beginning of nearly every argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems that sooner or later you all would learn the definition since it has to be cleared up at the beginning of nearly every argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
He meant that sooner or later YOU would learn it. Or at least use ours if you intend to converse with us, and not just fight against your strawman definitions.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Children can not & are not atheists. Jesus promised children eternal life if they die before they are intellectually mature. They haven't denied the existence of God as Atheists do. Any contortion of that is baloney & is completely false. Why would God accept an atheist into the kingdom of heaven??


[/ QUOTE ]

jesus said all children go to heaven
no atheists go to heaven
therefore
no children are atheists.

why else would he include the last sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, his logic is more like this:

Definition of atheist: Someone who doesn't go to heaven when they die.

Babies go to heaven.

Therefore, babies aren't atheists.

It all stems from his f'd up definition of what an atheist is.

[/ QUOTE ]

isn't that exactly the same as what i said?

[Silent A]

Not quite.

He actually believes that everyone who doesn't go to heaven is an atheist. I've discussed this with him elsewhere.

He's even open to the idea that Muslims might be atheists. Except he doesn't know enough about their religion to say for sure if they'll go to heaven or not.

[CallMeIshmael]

Whoa

a ZJ post about Catholocism and no BluffThis????

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
If Sullivan's version of Catholicism is true...GO ATHEISM!

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Sullivan's version of Catholicism is true...GO ATHEISM!

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah its pretty ridiculous that Andrew Sullivan is being presented as either a) a model of Catholic faith or b) an expert on theology in general. I see this from time to time in the media and it infuriates me. I know they had an interview with Harris and some guy whose name I cant even remember in either Time or Newsweek, cant remember which. While I appreciate his willingness to defend Christianity in the magazine, he was clearly intellectually outmanned. I would love to see a debate between an actual Catholic theologian or even a respected apologist against Harris or Dawson. . I know it wouldnt sway any of the atheists in here since they all pretty much have their minds made up but it would still be a more interesting read or viewing to be sure.