General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Volenta wrote:
I'm not sure why it is relevant. Whether Jesus existed or not is totally uninteresting to me. In the conversation we are having I can only care to a certain degree about the divinity of Jesus (if he existed).
I agree. I don't think it matters one bit if he existed or not; I'm happy to assume either way for the sake of argument.
Hitchens assumed Jesus was probably based on a real historical figure of some kind, though, given all of the contradictions and argument over it (and not that Jesus was completely fabricated as some conspiracy, which I think he argued would have resulted in more consistency).
He just disagreed that the Bible was anything closely resembling a real historical account of the life of such a person, which I think any rational person can pretty much agree with.
I like Dillahunty's explanation of why the existence of Jesus is irrelevant; just that someone exists does not mean all stories about him are true, for example Abraham Lincoln existed but most don't believe he was indeed a vampire hunter as a movie about him would suggest.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
Volenta wrote:Hitchens was as always more interested in the evil implications of theism rather than the existence of a theistic God.
Really??? Hitchens was a supporter of the Jesus myth and I've often seen him speak and debate about the stupidity of the belief in itself.
There have been a few comments about the above comment that I would like to clarify especially since someone mentioned his/her personal opinion of the Jesus myth which is interesting but completely irrelevant to this discussion. My comment about Hitchens and the Jesus myth was in reply to Volenta's comment that Hitchens was more concerned with the evil implications of theism rather than the existence of a theistic God. I agree with the statement that the immorality of religion was Hitchens's primary priority, but I wanted to point out that he also often spoke about the irrationality of believing in a theistic God. I could have used a few examples, but chose the "Jesus myth" as one and I am now regretful that this comment served as a distraction to the main point of the thread.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
Jebus wrote:There have been a few comments about the above comment that I would like to clarify especially since someone mentioned his/her personal opinion of the Jesus myth which is interesting but completely irrelevant to this discussion. My comment about Hitchens and the Jesus myth was in reply to Volenta's comment that Hitchens was more concerned with the evil implications of theism rather than the existence of a theistic God. I agree with the statement that the immorality of religion was Hitchens's primary priority, but I wanted to point out that he also often spoke about the irrationality of believing in a theistic God. I could have used a few examples, but chose the "Jesus myth" as one and I am now regretful that this comment served as a distraction to the main point of the thread.
That's right. And then I tried to clarify that both the stupidity of believing in a theistic God and arguing for this so called "Jesus myth" are not arguments about the existence of God, so this wasn't helping you to prove your point.
But I do agree with you that Hitchens also argued against the existence of God, but he mostly talked about—or changed the subject to—anti-theism.
In addition to the suggestion I made earlier, I also have another debate (or actually just an informal discussion) in mind that I would like to see, and that's Sam Harris against Daniel Dennett on the subject of free will. I know about the review Dennett did, to which Harris in his turn has responded, but I didn't consider that exchange to be very useful. It didn't get to the core of their disagreements, which I think can only be achieved through conversation (like Harris also thinks).
Volenta wrote:In addition to the suggestion I made earlier, I also have another debate (or actually just an informal discussion) in mind that I would like to see, and that's Sam Harris against Daniel Dennett on the subject of free will. I know about the review Dennett did, to which Harris in his turn has responded, but I didn't consider that exchange to be very useful. It didn't get to the core of their disagreements, which I think can only be achieved through conversation (like Harris also thinks).
That would be very interesting indeed. I would prefer a more conversation-like form over a formal debate though.
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
Matt Dillahunty vs TheVeganAtheist (Topic: Is veganism is an ethical obligation?)*
also
Gary Francione vs BrimstoneSalad (Topic: What's the more rational form of vegan advocacy? Deontology or consequentialism?)**
*This of course would never happen. Matt Dillahunty lacks the intellectual courage to address the morality of exploiting and killing animals.
**This would be nice if it was on this forum (I know that BrimstoneSalad has expressed interest in doing this). Better yet, a live debate to a public audience (even more unlikely) with a large crowd of Franciobots watching. I wonder if she could actually manage to change Francione's stance on deontology and consequentialism. Imagine that!
Probably not, because Francione (the God of deontological veganism) is immune to criticism, and anyone who considers his advocacy to be irrational, "either doesn't understand it or is deliberately misrepresenting it."
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:
Gary Francione vs BrimstoneSalad (Topic: What's the more rational form of vegan advocacy? Deontology or consequentialism?)**
Fancione isn't concerned with rationality, he's concerned with idealism; he bases his premises on supernatural precepts (which he often fails to mention to make his arguments appear to be based on something rational), and doesn't think that morality can exist without some kind of divine creator god being. So, I don't think there would be much of a discussion to have. I would have to start by dismantling his religious beliefs, and then go on from there if there was anything left to him.
Me vs. Singer would be an interesting debate. And he might actually go for it if he had time, but I doubt he would do it for free since he is a busy man. https://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/contact.html
Maybe somebody in the states with a phone could ask him how much he'd charge (per word, or response, or based on time spent?) to participate in an open online forum debate here. If it's not too much, it may be worth it even for forum publicity.
