ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags hardball , christopher hitchens , atheism , al sharpton

Reply
Old 3rd July 2007, 03:22 PM   #1
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Al Sharpton admits the Bible is a bunch of crap

Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton had a debate on TV's Hardball a few days ago. Hitchens started pointing out how bad the Ten Commandments are and how it's absurd to think the place Moses and the Hebrews had just left, Egypt, didn't have its own laws and ethics. Al Sharpton pooh-poohed Hitchens points saying that's just religion, not God. Hitchens was basically saying the Bible was a load of crap and Sharpton didn't argue that point.

Sharpton backed off into a deist position and did not defend the Bible because he knew he couldn't. This a common tactic used by modern Christians in these debates. Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, need to be called on it. Al Sharpton is supposed to be a Pentecostal, not a deist. His autobiography is even called "Go and Tell Pharaoh."

If you agree, then the next time you use the name "Al Sharpton" make it a link to this blog post if you can:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007...-bunch-of.html

If enough people do it then its title: "Al Sharpton admits the Bible is a bunch of crap" will show up on a Google search for Sharpton's name.

Or, write your own Sharpton blog with a similar title and I'll link you.
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2007, 03:46 PM   #2
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,445
Originally Posted by normdoering View Post
Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton had a debate on TV's Hardball a few days ago. Hitchens started pointing out how bad the Ten Commandments are and how it's absurd to think the place Moses and the Hebrews had just left, Egypt, didn't have its own laws and ethics. Al Sharpton pooh-poohed Hitchens points saying that's just religion, not God. Hitchens was basically saying the Bible was a load of crap and Sharpton didn't argue that point.

Sharpton backed off into a deist position and did not defend the Bible because he knew he couldn't. This a common tactic used by modern Christians in these debates. Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, need to be called on it. Al Sharpton is supposed to be a Pentecostal, not a deist. His autobiography is even called "Go and Tell Pharaoh."

If you agree, then the next time you use the name "Al Sharpton" make it a link to this blog post if you can:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007...-bunch-of.html

If enough people do it then its title: "Al Sharpton admits the Bible is a bunch of crap" will show up on a Google search for Sharpton's name.

Or, write your own Sharpton blog with a similar title and I'll link you.
It seems to me this belongs in the R & P forum.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2007, 07:33 PM   #3
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
 
Dorian Gray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 20,363
If it happened on Hardball, it could go either way. Why get bunged about where it should go? Just participate if you want, and don't if you don't.

I think Sharpton would say that he didn't not defend the Bible, he just didn't argue with Hitchens
__________________
"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." - Willy Wonka
"Rational arguments don't work on religious people. If they did, there wouldn't be any religious people." - House
Additionally to Carlin being funnier than Izzard, I think Dorian is funnier than the Marquis. - Ron Tomkins
Dorian Gray is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2007, 04:24 PM   #4
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
I think Sharpton would say that he didn't not defend the Bible, he just didn't argue with Hitchens
Did you see the debate?
Follow this link if you want to find links to the video:
Al Sharpton

Sharpton did not defend the Bible after given several critiques and even said -- "that's just religion, that's not God." He argued as a deist, not a Christian.

Still, Hitchens didn't push him on it so Sharpton didn't really have to say the Bible was wrong.
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2007, 06:44 PM   #5
MelBrooksfan
Graduate Poster
 
MelBrooksfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,009
Originally Posted by normdoering View Post
Still, Hitchens didn't push him on it so Sharpton didn't really have to say the Bible was wrong.
Could Hitchens push? That quote seems to place it in a "God is a personal thing" matter. Though, if so, I'll say that seems to be sort of a cheap trick.

Last edited by MelBrooksfan; 4th July 2007 at 06:46 PM. Reason: Emphasis
MelBrooksfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2007, 05:15 AM   #6
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
It seems to me this belongs in the R & P forum.

DR
No it is current events, I can't beleive we found someone who cares what Sharpton thinks.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2007, 11:08 AM   #7
Tanstaafl
Unindicted Co-conspirator
 
Tanstaafl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,459
Really.

After Tawana Brawley, Sharpton has no credibility of any sort.
__________________
To forgive is human, to condemn for eternity is divine. -- AudioFreak
Truth is where evidence comes from, not where belief leads to. --yy2bggggs

Expelled exposed!
Sylvia Browne
Tanstaafl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2007, 12:40 PM   #8
l0rca
I know so much karate
 
l0rca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by normdoering View Post
Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton had a debate on TV's Hardball a few days ago. Hitchens started pointing out how bad the Ten Commandments are and how it's absurd to think the place Moses and the Hebrews had just left, Egypt, didn't have its own laws and ethics. Al Sharpton pooh-poohed Hitchens points saying that's just religion, not God. Hitchens was basically saying the Bible was a load of crap and Sharpton didn't argue that point.

Sharpton backed off into a deist position and did not defend the Bible because he knew he couldn't. This a common tactic used by modern Christians in these debates. Christians, as well as Jews and Muslims, need to be called on it. Al Sharpton is supposed to be a Pentecostal, not a deist. His autobiography is even called "Go and Tell Pharaoh."

If you agree, then the next time you use the name "Al Sharpton" make it a link to this blog post if you can:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007...-bunch-of.html

If enough people do it then its title: "Al Sharpton admits the Bible is a bunch of crap" will show up on a Google search for Sharpton's name.

Or, write your own Sharpton blog with a similar title and I'll link you.
This is the sort of silly crap that pisses me off so that I shirk to admit that I'm an atheist.

Al Sharpton did not at any point "admit the bible is a bunch of crap". That, from you, is intellectual dishonesty. And it is a very ignorant way to convey an idea.

Next time you create a thread, or post your opinion, please, correctly represent both sides, despite your disagreements.

I saw the debate between them, and while both had problems, Hitchens seems to have misunderstood Sharpton throughout most of the rounds, to where Sharpton seemed to get annoyed. Both I think, in the end missed actually arguing against the other.

For those that did not see the debate: Sharpton does not admit the bible is "crap". At all.
l0rca is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2007, 04:04 PM   #9
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by l0rca View Post
Al Sharpton did not at any point "admit the bible is a bunch of crap". That, from you, is intellectual dishonesty. And it is a very ignorant way to convey an idea.

Next time you create a thread, or post your opinion, please, correctly represent both sides, despite your disagreements.
I disagree of course. Just because Sharpton did not explicitly say "You're right Hitch, the Bible is crap" doesn't mean he can escape from meaning that very thing. When Hitchens went on about the Bible and Sharpton said "that's just religion, not God" it is Shapton who is dodging and being dishonest. Without a Bible or something to define what is meant by the word "God" you have no way to know what you're arguing about. Sharpton backed off into a kind of deist position where the word "God" doesn't necessarily mean anything. In refusing to address Hitchens Biblical criticism he is indeed admitting he can't.

If you doubt this, then tell me what Sharpton meant by "God."
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2007, 10:02 PM   #10
l0rca
I know so much karate
 
l0rca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by normdoering View Post
I disagree of course. Just because Sharpton did not explicitly say "You're right Hitch, the Bible is crap" doesn't mean he can escape from meaning that very thing. When Hitchens went on about the Bible and Sharpton said "that's just religion, not God" it is Shapton who is dodging and being dishonest. Without a Bible or something to define what is meant by the word "God" you have no way to know what you're arguing about. Sharpton backed off into a kind of deist position where the word "God" doesn't necessarily mean anything. In refusing to address Hitchens Biblical criticism he is indeed admitting he can't.

If you doubt this, then tell me what Sharpton meant by "God."
Sharpton did not by all perspectives fall into a deist position. The deist position claims that god is not active or interested in the human condition. He didn't talk about deism at all, and was specific that he was there to talk about the existence of a God. He obviously wanted to keep the topic focused. Guessing about his motives, then claiming your guesses to be "obvious" is silly.

You say Sharpton doesn't escape "meaning" to admit the bible is crap. How is not defending the Bible, when giving explicit reason for not doing it, admitting that the bible is crap? To take it out of context, how would one, with the same logic, not come to the conclusion that anyone not defending what another person accuses them of is somehow "admitting the accusation is true"?

I'm not going to chase you around with this argument. If you don't understand how representing your assumptions about another person's opinion as statements of their behalf is intellectually dishonest, perhaps you need to better acquaint yourself with the term.

Last edited by l0rca; 6th July 2007 at 10:55 PM.
l0rca is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2007, 04:03 AM   #11
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by l0rca View Post
You say Sharpton doesn't escape "meaning" to admit the bible is crap. How is not defending the Bible, when giving explicit reason for not doing it, admitting that the bible is crap? To take it out of context, how would one, with the same logic, not come to the conclusion that anyone not defending what another person accuses them of is somehow "admitting the accusation is true"?
This is a very bad analogy as you are not putting it in the context of a debate, if someone make salient points and you do not rebut them then in a debate it should carry some view that you accept those points.

I am still confused by why anyone cares what Sharpton thinks.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2007, 07:43 AM   #12
normdoering
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by l0rca View Post
Sharpton did not by all perspectives fall into a deist position. The deist position claims that god is not active or interested in the human condition.
You have a point there. I have badly worded that. It should be worded "Sharpton fell into a position that, for all we know from his current argument, could have been a deist position."

By not dealing with Hitchens Biblical criticism, by explicitly dismissing it as "just religion - which could be wrong" he leaves behind anything that could define what he meant by God. What is God if not defined by a religion? A Christian really can't be dismissing the Bible and criticism of it as "just religion." It's suppose to be his religion.
normdoering is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2007, 08:24 AM   #13
l0rca
I know so much karate
 
l0rca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
This is a very bad analogy as you are not putting it in the context of a debate, if someone make salient points and you do not rebut them then in a debate it should carry some view that you accept those points.

I am still confused by why anyone cares what Sharpton thinks.
I was stripping it down to the essentials of how I was describing the situation, that's all.

As I said, Sharpton gave reasons for not touching them very early in. Any view that claims he accepts those points is an assumptive point, and based on the situation, and it assumes something Sharpton seems to have did not want anyone to assume.

My personal evaluation of the argument:

I was annoyed at both of them, and annoyed at what was supposedly the "great debater" Hitchens is. Sharpton was clear that he wanted Hitchens to establish a strong premise of why people should believe that a god does not exist. He seemed, though I don't remember him being clear, to define the god he wants Hitchens to disprove to be a theist one, and at least spiritually accessible through the Bible. Once it became as completely obvious as possible what Sharpton wanted of Hitchens, Hitchens sort of declined. I don't think that was the best move. I think if he prepared for the question, he could have made an argument of axiom epistemology: comparing any idea of god to any other idea of a god, all are equally arguable. Instead, both seemed to meet halfway at this point, and the argument was over. Of course it was Sharpton's fault as well: Hitchens was not there to argue about the existence or greatness of a god: Hitchens was there to argue about religion (and perhaps Hitchens was too-entirely conflating all ideas of god with religion), and Sharpton never recognized this (or attempted to resolve why it may seem like a conflation), and that argument never happened.

Last edited by l0rca; 7th July 2007 at 09:11 AM.
l0rca is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2007, 10:25 AM   #14
l0rca
I know so much karate
 
l0rca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Norm, like I said, I'm not going to continue this, but I think you understand now. Nevertheless, I was rude to you while you were polite to me. So, sorry about tactlessness.
l0rca is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2007, 12:01 PM   #15
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,517
Originally Posted by l0rca View Post
I was stripping it down to the essentials of how I was describing the situation, that's all.

As I said, Sharpton gave reasons for not touching them very early in. Any view that claims he accepts those points is an assumptive point, and based on the situation, and it assumes something Sharpton seems to have did not want anyone to assume.

My personal evaluation of the argument:

I was annoyed at both of them, and annoyed at what was supposedly the "great debater" Hitchens is. Sharpton was clear that he wanted Hitchens to establish a strong premise of why people should believe that a god does not exist. He seemed, though I don't remember him being clear, to define the god he wants Hitchens to disprove to be a theist one, and at least spiritually accessible through the Bible. Once it became as completely obvious as possible what Sharpton wanted of Hitchens, Hitchens sort of declined. I don't think that was the best move. I think if he prepared for the question, he could have made an argument of axiom epistemology: comparing any idea of god to any other idea of a god, all are equally arguable. Instead, both seemed to meet halfway at this point, and the argument was over. Of course it was Sharpton's fault as well: Hitchens was not there to argue about the existence or greatness of a god: Hitchens was there to argue about religion (and perhaps Hitchens was too-entirely conflating all ideas of god with religion), and Sharpton never recognized this (or attempted to resolve why it may seem like a conflation), and that argument never happened.
Ah that is helpful, I really don't care enough about what either of them has to say to really want to spend the time on that whole show.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.