Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-23-2002, 05:42 PM

<a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2075653/" target="_blank">The Atheist Christmas Challenge</a>

I bring this rather inane article to your attention.

Quote:

For everyone else, there would appear to be three theological options. 1) You can believe, as I do, that the universe is presided over by a being that is 100 percent malevolent but only 80 percent effective (which explains pretty much everything). 2) You can agree with logical positivists, who claimed that "God exists" is cognitively meaningless and hence neither true nor false. Or 3) you can become a Unitarian.

I haven't gone through Slate's message boards to see if there are any intelligent comments.

Automaton · 12-23-2002, 07:10 PM

Blegh, what a load of near substance-less tripe. I won't even dignify it with a response.

Grumpy · 12-24-2002, 01:46 PM

It's true that anyone who calls themselves "atheist" should be able to explain why. And it also appears that the headline, more than the article, is what suggests that atheists have the burden of proof.

However, by failing to provide a useful definition of atheism, i.e. one who has no god-belief, the "challenge" falls short.

Liquidrage · 12-24-2002, 02:12 PM

It is also a poor article in that the author states his own belief as the universe is controlled by a 100% benevolent deity that is only 80% successful.

Umm, yeah, ok.
So let me get this straight.
He can make all sorts of absurd claims without any evidence and then it's up to me to prove they are wrong?

OK, well I'll prove it then.
Look, see god?
Me either.

I couldn't even find a link to email him a rebuttle.

seebs · 12-24-2002, 04:00 PM

Not 100% benevolent, 100% *malevolent*. I think he was joking, and rather cleverly.

sandlewood · 12-24-2002, 05:56 PM

In one article I think he covered just about every misconception of atheism and most basic poor arguments for theism. Very comprehensive! Now all he needs to do it visit II and learn something.

If I was a teacher giving a class on atheism and critical thinking, I think I could use that article as a nice test for spotting fallacies.

I�m not sure I got the joke about malevolence, though. I thought it was just his way of getting past the problem of evil.

[ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Liquidrage · 12-24-2002, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seebs:
<strong>Not 100% benevolent, 100% *malevolent*. I think he was joking, and rather cleverly.</strong>

You're right. And when you're right you're right.
And in this case, you're right.

Toto · 12-24-2002, 06:27 PM

If you joke like that about the existence of god, does it mean you think the question is silly? Are you just trying to avoid admitting that there clearly is no god, there is no serious argument to be made for god, but you don't want to admit it? That's what I get out of it.

Origian · 12-24-2002, 07:34 PM

Hehehe....
After just having read that article I rushed over here to post a link - obviously beaten to it. No interesting points made at all, can't discern between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism, typical theistic arguments, the list goes on.

Jan Haugland · 12-25-2002, 06:53 AM

Yes, that article was particularly ignorant and insulting. I ran over here when I read it, too.

The whole thing is a straw man attack anyway.

I still felt I had to get rid of some steam, considering that this is the view of things dominating the mass media, so I wrote a <a href="http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2002/12/25.html#a696" target="_blank">reply to it in my blog</a>.

[ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jan Haugland ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2002, 07:10 PM	#2
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	Blegh, what a load of near substance-less tripe. I won't even dignify it with a response.

12-24-2002, 01:46 PM	#3
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	It's true that anyone who calls themselves "atheist" should be able to explain why. And it also appears that the headline, more than the article, is what suggests that atheists have the burden of proof. However, by failing to provide a useful definition of atheism, i.e. one who has no god-belief, the "challenge" falls short.

12-24-2002, 02:12 PM	#4
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	It is also a poor article in that the author states his own belief as the universe is controlled by a 100% benevolent deity that is only 80% successful. Umm, yeah, ok. So let me get this straight. He can make all sorts of absurd claims without any evidence and then it's up to me to prove they are wrong? OK, well I'll prove it then. Look, see god? Me either. I couldn't even find a link to email him a rebuttle.

12-24-2002, 04:00 PM	#5
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	Not 100% benevolent, 100% malevolent. I think he was joking, and rather cleverly.

12-24-2002, 05:56 PM	#6
sandlewood Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Posts: 264	In one article I think he covered just about every misconception of atheism and most basic poor arguments for theism. Very comprehensive! Now all he needs to do it visit II and learn something. If I was a teacher giving a class on atheism and critical thinking, I think I could use that article as a nice test for spotting fallacies. I�m not sure I got the joke about malevolence, though. I thought it was just his way of getting past the problem of evil. [ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

12-24-2002, 06:27 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you joke like that about the existence of god, does it mean you think the question is silly? Are you just trying to avoid admitting that there clearly is no god, there is no serious argument to be made for god, but you don't want to admit it? That's what I get out of it.

12-24-2002, 07:34 PM	#9
Origian Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: A cave. On Mars. Posts: 36	Hehehe.... After just having read that article I rushed over here to post a link - obviously beaten to it. No interesting points made at all, can't discern between 'weak' and 'strong' atheism, typical theistic arguments, the list goes on.

12-25-2002, 06:53 AM	#10
Jan Haugland Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bergen, Norway Posts: 70	Yes, that article was particularly ignorant and insulting. I ran over here when I read it, too. The whole thing is a straw man attack anyway. I still felt I had to get rid of some steam, considering that this is the view of things dominating the mass media, so I wrote a <a href="http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2002/12/25.html#a696" target="_blank">reply to it in my blog</a>. [ December 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jan Haugland ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.