JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
I love how the theist totally ignores the challenge of a moral statement/deed that couldn't be done by a non-believer and a wicked statement/deed only a believer could. Hitch is right, I've seen/heard him put that question about 15 times now and the only answer he's ever received is crickets.
I, and most spiritually-inclined people, would rather believe in a "celestial dictator" (as Hitchens accurately put it) commanding me to be moral than some impersonal software in my cells mandating vague morality with no real purpose but to perpetuate itself IF the third option of me being an autonomous Conscious Being wasn't an option... which isn't taught to us as children, Christian OR Atheist. Selfhood is nowhere to be found in Culture!!!
As a non-religious and non-atheist individual I can shed light on the question of morality and why Christians might get "stuck" on this point and ultimately "bought in".
"For the purpose of evolution and survival" is such a DRY and deflated reason for morality. It doesn't bring Consciousness into the picture at all. Neither camp believes in Consciousness, Christians replaced that with God and Atheists replaced that with Evolution. When really we have Souls, and immorality isn't conducive OR fun
When someone say to me they are religious it warns me they have a form of retardation. It also say to me if it wasn't for religion god made me to be possibly the biggest asshole on the planet.
The problem is one of *grounding*. The atheist, while morally good, cannot *ground* is moral objection to anything. No matter how hard he tries – it simply can’t be done. That said, the atheist should not care that this is the case. In other words, the atheist should say, “I do not care that I cannot ground my moral beliefs”. Nothing trumps their lack of belief.
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES ALL SACRAMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE - OF THE LIVING GOD - THE BREAD OF LIFE IN THE EUCHARIST!
WITH 2,000 YEARS OF TRADITION AND SACRIFICES OF CHRISTIANS TODAY WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.
MANY PROPHECIES AND VISIONARIES.
THE REAL MIRACLES, EFFECTIVE EXORCISMS, INCCORUPT BODIES OF SAINTS,
Wow. Roberts's admission that Christians are proud, primitive, lowborn dullards at 2:36, needing old Jewish fairytales to keep them from hubris, criminality, sexual bizareness, starting wars and so forth is the coolest thing I've ever heard a religious side say in an atheist vs. theist debate. The only religious person I've heard that acknowledged Atheists are more philanthropic, smarter, and commit lower crimes per capita by FAR.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays The very notion of residual morality that keeps most Western Atheists on the straight and narrow is that from the Judeo Christian branch. Wars don't start because of religion....not even The Crusades!
@PLScotland So is there a god or isn't there? If you believe there isn't and that religion is just a useful fabrication, then morality originated with mankind anyway, so there goes that argument. If you do believe, you're ignoring the fact that human society predates Christianity, so the influence of the Christian god isn't responsible for civil order. Your argument fails on both accounts.
@Grak70 Some good points. On your first- if it were merely a "useful fabrication" then it is still a superstition that has formed the moral framework of the self same atheists to whom I referred. Nothing is really too different in that respect.
On the second point-Society on what level ? Filthy hominids huddled around a fire? The great and ancient societies (Persians, Egyptians, Mayans & the Chinese)that lifted man from the peat bog were all founded on religious principles and beliefs.
@PLScotland The idea that great societies had religion is not in contest. But when you ignore the fact that filthy hominids huddling around a fire ALSO had religion (and we know this from archaeology) you dismiss the correlation and imply causation. Regardless, you've failed to answer the underlying problem: if most ancient religions are wrong, then your preferred brand had nothing to do with their civilization. That means civil society is a product of man, not gods.
@Grak70 Again, interesting points?Though there is clearly a theory of mind issue between us. You are attributing opinions to me that I haven't put forth. We are not chess pieces we can do things of our own volition, however these great societies did have at their cores strong religious ideologies. More primitive societies of the same eras may also have been religious but there is no evidence that earlier/different hominid species were .
@PLScotland The main thing religion was used for in those societies was to reinforce the divine or semidivine nature of the monarch, and waste valuable resources in burials and mourning periods. The Shang had oracle bones, Zoroastrianism coincided with an illiterate, prehistoric society on the decline, and lovely Mayan religion led to hearts being ripped out of virgins. As for no religious wars, look up the Baltic Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Pope Urban II.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays We don't need religion to imbue divinity upon people we have media Gods everywhere and the adulation and devotion of their followers is unquestionable! As for the Shang and the Sun Worshippers we all need ritual we all want answers. (I think) Voltaire said that if God did not exist then man would need to create him.
As for those wars, I have read about many of the crusades and the underlying motive in all but one was power and money. Religion is merely a red herring.
Those monarchs wrapped themselves in the power structure of religions to disguise themselves as gods to control people, hence the "divine right of kings" or the "Son of Heaven." Power and money were indeed much of the motivation of the crusades, as was religion, inseparably. The Cathar suppression and Teutonic invasion of Lithuania alone can't be separated. Even if religion was being used merely as a trick to cover the real reason of land grabs, it would be good reason to be rid of it.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Divine right of Kings, dude once again you go back to the dark ages to prove a point which merely shows how bad the moral decline of that period was per se, rather than how bad religion is. Is Henry VIII's claim to divine anointment any worse than the actual deification of Pol Pot, Josef Stalin or Mao. Is their atheism inseparable from their hunger for power?I'll be a little more charitable and concede that it is. The last statement.....we'll let you forget that one;)
@PLScotland You've got the wrong era, that's more like medieval through Englightenment. The difference is Henry VIII had an institutional backing with a long history and firm control over people's minds and loyalties. No such institution existed under Mao, etc. What did was credulity and totalitarianism. People were killed for suspected political dissidence, NOT believing in God, largely BY theists. I stand by religion as a mask for erstwhile aggrandizement, no reason for you to forget it.
@PLScotland I believe you meant to say "separable," not "inseparable." If you mean to play the part of the smirking, condescending man of unassailable logic who charitably concedes points, pay attention to the wording of your invalid statements. Those men built a cult of personality, at best virtual rather than actual deification. Henry VIII is about 600 years from the Dark Ages, btw.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays You make some very subjective points which are completely incidental to even the broader content of this thread. I imagine when you sit your exams in school when stumped you score out the question and write " But wait heres one I know the answer to :)". For the record inseparable or separable the answer to either question reveals the same truth....really;)
@PLScotland They're objective points until you can intelligibly show them to be subjective. I've stayed entirely within the purview of the conversation. I didn't get stumped in college, I assisted professors when their knowledge was insufficient to answer students' questions. I'll consider this argument conceded.
@JiangZiyaTabooDays For a kick off, your entire previous post consisted of nought but subjective points. You make assumptions about me and my line of argument. Purely subjective! Your point of the cult of personality-nominal? These monsters had the power of life over death and every visual tribute on paper or graven became the image of a living god.
The secular world is full of idolatry. Voltaire was right where there are no Gods there is a need to create them.
@PLScotland Are you so daft to think that the world exists in a vacuum where only God or Stalin-like figures can be worshipped? The point is that credulity and herd mentality are dangerous, as opposed to independent thought and Enlightenment values. Stalin and religion belong to the former, my position belongs to the latter. The whole "crimes of atheism" is misrepresentation and fearmongering by the religious as a means of saying "Yeah, we're bad, but they're even worse!" Just a lie.
Independent thought and herd mentality- Independent thought has led brilliant men to different conclusions. Russell could not believe in a greater power but his protege Wittgenstein could? Conformity has led men to accept many different dictates without question whether we refer to unquestioning belief in God or an acceptance of atheism/humanism. There are lots of individual variables out "there". Many accept Darwin but have never read O.O.S or D.O.M is this an advancement on blind faith?
@PLScotland I still do not think we are connecting on this issue. You claim that religion is the source of morality. Yet, if religion is just a useful mnemonic, you've proven nothing but that humans are good at codifying and enforcing rules. This assertion does nothing to suggest that the rule of law has any origin outside of our own faculties. As secular law demonstrates, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the same or better results without religious doctrine.
@Grak70 Whether or not they were the first source, religions are source(s) of morality, the Judeo Christian tradition has been the source of the prevailing normal range of secular Western morality as it currently exists. I dispute whether we can recognise any real set of values that could be defined as exclusively secular due to the evolution of our current laws/beliefs from Christian origins. Of course I can no more prove they originated from God than I can disprove that they did.
@PLScotland And I'd contend that just because religions codify universal principles of morality, that doesn't mean that those principles originate with religion. Show me a society that DOESN'T have some kind of, at a minimum, restrictions on killing, theft, perjury, etc. You're making a causal connection where none is warranted. Your argument is just one big confused post-modernist mish-mash. I'm not sure what you're trying to defend if not moral absolutism based on religious dogma.
@PLScotland As a matter of fact, while you may be right that religions are a source of morality (in a definitional sense of "moral"), they are also sources of both amoral and -immoral- proscriptions. Instructions on who and when you can enslave others as well as admonitions not mix fabrics or cut your beard: these are not moral edicts, yet they are treated as such. I think we can do better than that without being told.
@PLScotland Right. Religion is flourishing in the third world, disappearing in civilized nations, crime and explosive birth rates are directly correlated to Judeo-Christian ensorcelment. I haven't believed in God for a second, I develop my own morality, I do good things for their own sake rather than to please a superstition and I didn't need primitive myths for it. Look up the 30 Years' War or any of the other "Wars of Religion" in the 16th and 17th centuries before you keep lying for God.
BTW, Hitler was raised in a catholic house, Natzi soldiers made an alegence to god, and the currencey of the thrid reich had thological imagery e.g. churches, imprinted on it. There are also many quotes were Hitler appears to support christianity. So the jury is still out re hitlers faith
The tired old body count arguement. Its such a red herring, and anyone that uses it needs to have a long think. The people that you list did not commit their crimes in the name of athiesm, unlike the crusades, inqusiton, modern day Jihad etc. Even if they did, what value is the arguement? Does it cancel out all the crimes committed by theists? All it proves that men are capable of evil deeds regardless of belief.
Some people do positive moral actions precisely because of their belief in a God, and without that belief, would never have undertaken the moral action. To say that atheists are just as capable of performing any moral action means nothing. Nobody disputes that. What people do dispute is what actions theists and atheists actually undertake. Irrefutable proof that a belief (either accurate or inaccurate) in God contributes to society in a positive way.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't believe there are any actions that 'believers' do that 'unbelievers' don't. Both donate charity, give blood, recycle, etc. What I'm talking about is on a personal level. I believe that some believers do things PRECISELY because they believe, and for no other reason. That's not to say that they're better people or that they're more moral (in fact, it shows the opposite, if anything), but a belief in God DOES contribute to society.
Hitchens always asks this question, and I'm surprised people let him get away with it. Theists are not arguing that atheists are incapable of performing the same actions that theists can, but rather that atheists don't perform the same actions that theists do. It's not a question of capability but of actuality. Is Hitchens claiming that there has never been an action done in the name of or because of a belief in God? That's utter nonsense and blatantly false. (continued)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I love Hitchens, but I heard him in one debate, (I think it was with Jay Richards) say that "nature knows" in the context of a conversation dealing with misacarriages and why they occur. So in other words "nature" or "God", what have you- is deliberate and decides on what and who stays and goes. Therefore "nature", "God" what have you, is a "celestial or cosmic dictator". He's gotta explain how he defends that logic.
It doesn't have to do with science but the point he makes is that religion drove them to do those very immoral and disgusting things. Also, foreskin does have a purpose, it acts as a guard and preserves the sensitivity of the penis.
What the hell have Hitchens' arguments on genital mutilation, vicarious redemption, the effects of religion on behaviour, morality etc etc to do with SCIENCE??? These are philosophical and ethical arguments, period. I am still waiting for an aswer to his question; "On what other grounds, religion excepted, what it be acceptable, or LEGAL, to take a knife/stone and cut off part of the body of your child? P.S. Why did GOD create foreskins on ALL mammals? No function? Poor design?
Hitchens was explaining the folly of moral anti-realism because the question posed was dealing with christian objective morality. Hitchens showed how it is relative. You may want to have it explained scientifically; however, it was not within the scope of this discussion. I'm not really sure what you're getting upset for?
Question : do foreskins, because they cover the sensitive part of the penis, lessen sexual desire due to lack of extra anatomical contact.. thereby leading to less copulation and less population. ?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Christopher Hitchens has become something of a tin god for his doe-eyed fans. This man is not a practicing scientist and his arguments (for what they are worth), are really the products of the laborious efforts of other dedicated scientists, so it makes you wonder why this perpetually drunk and antagonistic fellow has managed to secure such fawning internet/youtube worshippers. He is no Richard Dawkins. Besides, being antitheist seems to me to be purely reactionary in its fuller context.
Actually, Hitchens, much like De Grasse and Dawkins is well spoken, intelligent, and isn't afraid to call anyone a dumbass. Those, imo are respectable qualities.
Atheism isn't reactionary any way. Annoyance, on the other hand, of some fools that try to foist their talking snakes and imaginary friends on everyone else... IS, indeed, reactionary.
@Exmech2 don't you ever worry that your entire position is really just the mirror reflection of an absurd caricature of a god you made up that no one (not even Christians) believes in? I would call that quite reactionary. Anyway, there are plenty of intelligent and honest atheists but you seem like the religious variety to my which is pretty ironic.
@rgs11 I'm sorry, but I see no reason to be diplomatic when discussing the delusionary. There is no "religious variety" of atheism. Never was. This is an attempt at an insult the deluded came up with trying to claim that atheism is somehow related to religion. It isn't. Actually, the word wouldn't even need to be invented. After all, there is no word for not believing in Santa Clause.
Oh please. Was Jefferson a scientist? Thomas Paine?
Almost all of Hitchens arguments aren't even based on scientific methods, they are based on logic, human faculty and the larger picture from the standpoint of the species as a whole.
So ignoring the obvious falsehoods in your little screed here, I'd say Hitchens' arguments are more effective than any ones based on science.
Science can't disprove God, common sense can or at least diminish Him significantly.
@F33bs Actually Jeffrson was a scientist of sorts. As vice president he delivered a lecture on fossils to the Americal Philosophical society and was the only president in his time to have read and understood Newton. If you want to know more about his scientific achievments I highly recommend the book "Science and the founding fathers" by Bernard Cohen.
Oh and logic is half of the scientific method, the other half is evidence.
@Tapecutter59 I should correct something you said in that comment. Evidence is half of the scientific method, the other half is formulating theories with which to test against evidence. However you dont use logic to formulate theories. You just seek patterns/make predictions.
@boorens18 Depends on what you mean by the word logic. By the common definition I am using 'logic' is a synonym for 'reasoning'. Finding a pattern is the act of inductive reasoning, making a prediction is the act of deductive reasoning.
@whysers Agreed, just pointing out that Jefferson had scientific cred in his own time as did several other "founding fathers", not the least of which was Ben Franklin.
@F33bs "Science can't disprove god" Um yes it can and it has plenty of times. In the bible it says God made man with Adam and Eve but science shows we evolved from less intelligent life forms. And every time logic and science battle battle, science wins because it's based on facts, and logic is based on speculation .Different people speculate things differently, but everybody agrees that 1 +1 = 2. Logic states that a ship that was made to to be unsinkable, won't sink. Look at the Titanic.....
@F33bs Actually Jefferson was something of a scientist. He was a palaeontologist, archaeologist and botanist and invented a special chilled container for transporting vaccines.
@F33bs If it's true that God can't be disproven, then it is also true that the concept can't be proven and therefore not falsifiable, making it an unreasonable and unscientific claim to make. However, the argument can be made that God is indeed disprovable. Stephen Hawking argues that since time and space were created together in the Big Bang that no time existed before that event wherein God could have caused the event. Others argue that the lack of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.
we need to be a bit more discriminating, fellow Infidels. when believers prop their religion on scientific unknowns, it's our duty to call them on it every time
put the fuckers on the defense! demonstrate how science not being able to fully explain the source of the universe doesn't excuse them from believing in talking fire bushes and gods that care about their job interviews and football games.
they are shady. they'll only argue as Theist until you make it a liability or them.
Morality comes from reciprocity and most social animals have this. Look at morality in Japan. A very atheistic country with very low crime, high levels of courtesy, etc.
Recent studies show the religious are most likely to break laws.
I can't believe any one would argue the default belief would be that there is a Christian God whose son Jesus grew up in the Middle East and did all these things etc. etc. and the only evidence of it is a story passed down through 2 millenia. The bottom line is anyone who believes in religion usually does so because they have a strong interest in doing so - ie. go to heaven, so they have a much greater interest in discounting any argument against it than wanting to figure out the truth.
You're waversonman...and the thing is some people should be more honest with themselfs. There is a great misunderstanding that alot Atheists are fighting against GOD and don't wanna go to heaven and therefore argue again it. NO, maybe some but most would love some kind of an afterlife, the difference is they accept the possiblity that there is none and are dealing with it head on unstead of clinging to faith blindly.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hitchins is a self made philosopher, nothing more. He offers nothing in the way of proof to establish the non-existence of God other than the propensity of ALL men to sin (Whether he chooses to call moral deficiency by this moniker or not). This is no proof at all, other than that the Bible record is correct - "all have sinned" For example, it is no proof for his position to say that a Christian does evil. All this means is that the Christian in question is a hypocrite - as the Bible claims.
Prove an invisible, undetectable faerie doesn't live in your butt. The burden of proof is on the one claiming the thing exists, not on those who disbelieve the claim because it's unsupported.
@Grak70 Nonsense, if people have believed for thousands of years in many divine beings and continue en masse to do so, then I rather think the burden of proof is still with those who want to affect(or impose) change.
@PLScotland People believed in dragons, fairies, demons, wood elves, and countless other nonsense before we woke up to reality as a species. Are you implying that the burden of proof was on the "fairie skeptics" at that time as well? If you do, I can understand why this is so confusing for you: post-modernist bullshit has a way of rotting the brain.
Hitchens was educated in, Cambridge and Oxford university, where he read Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Hardly a self made philosopher, He has also worked and written for some of the most prestigious periodicals in the world. Considered one of America's top intellectuals and orators. Basically, you can disagree with him if you like, but your criticism is a pile of crap as it stands so far lexscripta1. It simply does not follow from your premise.
Yeah, I'd have been more impressed if he was self educated. But alas, filled his head up with deceptions from other institutions. Thats a shame, but its been happening for thousands of years.
He's pretty smart, I'll give him that. But, he is heading in the wrong direction.
Education is Indoctrination. Presuppositions direct your educational pursuits. ITS A FARCE.
Mark Roberts isn't a Good Bible Scholar either. But, he did a fair Job - mostly he was being courteous.
Okay, I'll try just one more here, then see what you respond with.
Indoctrination suggests lack of evidence, at least as you are posing it. We teach evolution and say 'here are the reasons and evidence.'
Religion is taught because 'this book says so, and we believe it'. Education is a farce, eh? So how, exactly are we to obtain knowledge of chemistry, biology, etc?
So then EVERYthing is 'just a theory', since nothing can be proven to a complete and total extent.
When something is called 'a theory' that means it has progressed from a hypothesis. Gravity is also 'a theory'. Want to argue its validity?
Here's the kicker: the theory of evolution by natural selection has NOTHING to do with origin. It is an explanation of how things progressed over time, after said origins. And, of course, it stands up to every test we can come up with, unlike faith.
What do they call it in school the "evolution theory" it is what it is, science changes it "theories" on it every 20 years or less. So what YOU believe today will probably be outdated in a decade or two. BOTH are based on FAITH, you have faith that mans theory is correct, some people have faith that the earth and solar systems were not caused by some collision of gasses and molecules billions of years ago. Either way its faith, no one knows for a fact.
The general definition of theory is not the same as a scientific theory. That should of been covered in your middle school science class. And creationism, faith, etc is not seen as a theory by believers. By calling evolution a theory, in an attempt to discredit it, all you're doing is showing your ignorance of science and what a scientific theory means.
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Most Scientists call it a theory where have you been? they call it a theory for a reason, they cannot prove how man or the solar systems came about, that is just a simple fact so they make educated guesses based on the information they have, of course what about the information they don't have that could throw their theory off completely?
Even by your own paragraph you are grossly misinterpreting the definition of faith. To be honest I'm not even sure you know exactly what that word means.
No its not, faith is the trust or confidence in a something be it human/idols/Gods and believing what they say is true. You are not a scientist are you? Yet you put your "Faith" in them that they know what they are talking about,despite a long history of being wrong quite often.
2stage is right and we know exactly how solar systems form. Perhaps a community college Astronomy class would be of some help to you. You might actually learn something other than repeating its just a theory... its just a theory... its just a theory...
Get off your high horse, we do NOT know exactly how our solar systems came from, The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations.
We do know exactly how our solar system came about.
You're thinking of how the universe came about. Which is explained by the big bang theory.
If you dont know the difference between a solar system, and the universe, you may need to take Maggie378 up on his/her offer of a community college astronomy course.
it was the First definition that pops up in google when you type "Scientific Theory Definition" and YES i do.. maybe you should take some reading comprehension classes.
So how does repeating the mantra of 'Its just a theory, its just a theory!' help your cause, when you have just discovered what the definition of 'Scientific Theory' is, and that its an explanation of why and how a natural phenomenon occurs, supported by facts and evidence.
Such as... the Gravitational Theory. Do you think 'Gravity is just a theory'?
The point is we both rely on a faith of some sort, so you don't have any room to go around hounding people. Some believe that we were created and they have faith in a higher being, some have faith in man and their scientific observations.
How many scientific observations over the last 200 years do we now look back on and laugh at?? You have Faith that the science of today is correct, based on its Current observations based on its current information which of course will be totally different 40 years from now or less. To think that this is all a big coincidence of gasses and molecules to me shows ignorance of the wonders found in nature and our university.
I'd like to take you up on this challenge. How many scientific theories from the last 200 years do we now look back and laugh at? Please go ahead and name some of them. Please remember that you are going to name scientific theories that were accepted and later proven to be false. In other words, we are not going to talk about ideas that were proposed and rejected but rather hypotheses that passed through the scientific community, were accepted and later were shown to be completely false.
That's it? These are either ideas which never made it through the scientific method, are still debatably true or have been subject to normal revisions. Compared to the number of irrefutable advances useful to humans the "errors" you have mentioned are trivial. Worse still for your argument none of them are laughably false in the sense that they were ridiculous assertions. Now go walk around your house and make a list of all the things science HAS done just in the small space you call home.
Oh now you are bringing up Scientific method, is that the ONLY thing that is declared Science then? So when the environmentalists say the"science is in" about global warming, they are all liars?
Yes in some cases they are either lying outright, doing so for effect or simply jumping the gun. My point is that claims made by individuals or groups that have not exposed their assertions to the rigorous checks and balances of the scientific community cannot be held up as failures of science. To answer your first point my answer is yes. If a hypothesis has not been tested by the scientific method it cannot claim to be science.
So how do YOU determine which scientists are being truthful and which are sold out?? for example global warming, there are clear differences from each side...
Thanks for making my point. No one is in a position to pass judgment on anyone's opinion, be it scientific or religious. My problem is with the people who pretend that science is the end all be all.
"your reply is that of a simple mind, or I bet a drunk mind, ranting on utube late at night."
It is 12:42pm right now where I am. I posted my previous message 23 hours before this, which means I posted it at around 1:42pm yesterday. I'm not sure what your definition of 'late' is...*sigh*
Blech, I'm NOT claiming ignorance. Insofar as my senses - the only tools I have - lead me, there is not a god. Are you a theist, by the way?
The burden of proof is always on the theist. The fact is that 'atheists' don't only make a negative claim, we make a sincerely positive one: the disciplines of science posit a formative answer, in exclusion of theism.
I'm sorry if I got you wrong, but it seems like you're saying it's the atheist's job to DISprove god, which is patently false.
I'm an atheist. Of course, I could hardly call the lack of a belief in a god(s) a 'belief system'. I think I understood what you meant by that in regard to this though.
Lets not forget that whole philosophies have been built on false premises. Mr Hitchins does this in every argument I have ever heard him extend. If those in mental institutions had the presence of mind to answer, they would tell you how dangerous it is to build reality on false assumptions.
A huge exercise in pomposity by both debaters. Roberts has built his fragile self-image on his Harvard degrees. If Hitchens is right, then Roberts isn't anyone SPECIAL, just another misguided Christian like any non-Harvard educated pastor. Since they start from mutually-exclusive, ultimately unprovable beiefs, they are talking apples and oranges and will never change each others' minds or those of the poor folks who had to endure this hot-air festival.
Atheism is not a belief, just the opposite. As for this kind of argumentation changing someone's mind, I am living proof that it can. And of course Roberts isn't anyone special; why should he be? You aren't anyone special (and neither am I), but I'm not interested in you; I am interested in your error and its exposure.
This type of argumentation (Roberts)changed my mind, all right - made me decide I could never remain a Christian and confine my questions and views to the inside of the bubble of a circular, self-referencing belief system untimately based on a choice as non-rational as my choice to practice no religion at all. Pompous asses, like Roberts, do the faith a disservice and lose as many or more believers as they save. Excuse me, now I'm off to write a check to Sarah Palin's opponant, Joe Biden.
Why do you say that your choice to practice no religion at all is non-rational? What motivated you to make that choice?
"...made me decide I could never remain a Christian and confine my questions and views to the inside of the bubble of a circular, self-referencing belief system..."
The account of Jacob's sons response to the rape of their sister in the book of Geneis demonstrates that one of Hitchin's basic premises is wrong. Namely, the idea of justice before Sinai and after.
The response to the rape, even after the rapist desires to marry the sister and joins cultures, is to deceive them into thinking they will make peace and then to kill all the males in the town, take the woman and children captive. Jacob's response is not outrage but fear of similar retaliation.
The "Eye for and Eye" received from Sinai, limited retaliation and promoted justice based upon the premise that the punishment must fit the crime. In addition Hitchins also asked for a moral precept that could not have originated in the mind of man. I would suggest Jesus" commandment to "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you". Such a precept hardly fits the notion of the survival of the fittest.
"Such a precept hardly fits the notion of the survival of the fittest."
How do you know? Are you an expert in evolutionary psychology? Do you know anything at all about this field? Perhaps you should check into it.
Besides this, you must be made aware that your statement assumes that merely because Jesus uttered a precept, it is moral--or that it is the only option for morality--as though morality was in fact handed down from above. In other words, you are begging the question.
Hi king Interesting. Hitchins asks for a moral precept that contradicts the survival of the fittest and I present one and you suggest that because I am not an expert on "evolutionary psychology" my statement is not correct and that it may not even be a moral precept. How do you know that "evolutionary psychology" is true? I know: because the "evolutionary psychologists" say it is Hitchins didn't ask for a moral precept that was indeed moral but simply for a moral precept I answered his challenge
And by the way, I was not saying that because Christianity survived for so long it must be true. I'm saying that according to the theory of survival of the fittest concerning moral precepts that were actually practiced, Christianity should not have survived.
When should it have died out, and how do you know it is not in the process of doing so? You don't seem to grasp the ideas you are railing against, and I suspect you are misapplying them.
Since Hitchins is a Darwinist, when he says "human imagination" he is speaking from this world view's perspective. I have not created a straw man and have certainly answered his challenge. More later.
And by the way, should I accept as true your statement that evolutionary psychology's theories have much more explanatory power than those put forth by theistic moralists because you say they do; or should I just take the evolutionary theorists' word for it on this matter? And Christianity is not evolving. The new heresies concerning the faith are nothing more than the old heresies under a different guise. More to follow.
And here is another moral precept that could not have originated from human imagination and therefore the survival of the fittest evolutionary world view: "A new commandment I give to you; love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another". It is a moral precept that has survived for 2000 years and is upheld as a standard which judges all other standards of love produced by the human imagination.
You simply are uneducated in the theories you are dismissing. Research reciprocity theory and investigate the evidence for altruism in nature for starters. In other words, shut up until you know something.
No, don't take my word for it. Educate yourself, by all means. Christianity IS evolving. You are merely a fundamentalist with your head up your ass. Why should I accept your view that "Christianity" can only refer to a static belief system frozen at a certain point in time? Do you think homosexuals should be stoned to death, for example? Is that what Jesus would do? It's what he (the Logos) commanded before he was born as a man. Christianity is not evolving=absurd.
I'll push you further. If you want to claim that "Christianity" is not evolving, then explain the Reformation, the English Civil Wars, the abolitionist movement among Christians, and the official "Christian" position on stem-cell research. But you must do so without referencing the ideas of anyone born after the moment in history at which your "true Christianity" is calcified.
To which heresies are you referring? I can suggest a few for you to choose from: the Trinity (a pagan idea culled from Babylonian myth); Christmas and Easter (similarly derived from paganism); the virgin birth trope (prominent in every pagan cult that pre-dates Jesus); the abolition of slavery (Jesus never preached this rot!); human rights; democracy; tolerance for other faiths--and even, God-forbid, for non-belief. This list could get really long, but I'll just keep it short.
I see your propensity for faith has led you to put words in this man's mouth. If you want to argue against the evidence for the evolution of morality, you first have to know something about what the theories say. Why do you refuse to educate yourself, while maintaining that you are correct, in spite of your willful ignorance? Oh, right: self-righteousness, the defining characteristic of the believer.
"I'm saying that according to the theory of survival of the fittest concerning moral precepts that were actually practiced, Christianity should not have survived."
"When should it have died out, and how do you know it is not in the process of doing so?"
I'm interested to know whether you concede this point, or whether you were ignoring this exchange merely because you are intellectually dishonest.
The belief that a Jew crucified 2000 years ago, (a fate suffered by countless Jews and Gentiles) was the Savior of the world was a hard sell to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Both cultures resisted the notion and indeed their ruling powers sought to destroy this belief system. The survival of this faith which demanded that its adherents must emulate their crucified leaders example concerning "love your enemies" despite the fact that theses enemies were seeking your extinction
My previous response (which I posted once before and which you ignored) indicates I don't concede the point and explains why I have not created a straw man and have indeed responded to Hitchins' challenge. There is no moral precept in human history produced by the human imagination in the category of "Love your enemy" or "A new commandment I give you: love one another; as I have loved you so you must love one another".
Christianity, If Jesus had not risen from the dead, should have never survived 51 days. (Day 51 was one day after the feast of Pentecost when the apostles first preached the Gospel in Jerusalem.) The reason being that Jerusalem was the place where Jesus had been killed and the easiest place to prove that the resurrection had not occurred. The fact that it survived, by seeking to follow Jesus' example not only day 51 but the ensuing persecution by hostile Governmnets. indicates Jesus rose.
And Christianity is not based upon circular the reasoning of a self referencing belief system: It is based upon the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. This resurrection either happened or it did not. Pinchas Lapides, a former member of the Israeli Gov. and Hebrew scholar and not a Christian wrote the book "The resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish perpective". In this book he argues that the evidence for the resurrection is so compelling that he is convinced of its historicity.
While the survival of Christianity, and Pinchas testimony concerning the resurrection do not prove it is true, they provide evidence could lead one to that conclusion. You ask how I know that the faith is not dying out? My response is that there is not indication that this is happening. Indeed, even in China where only certain denominations approved by the State are allowed, there is a booming underground Christian movement.
Concerning my being a fundamentalist with my head planted firmly in the area of my posterior, I offer the following: The gospel is based upon fundamental truths: namely that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead according to the scriptures. This life, death and resurrection have provided the means by which all who believe in Jesus, can by the grace of God, be reconciled to God and saved from the consequences of their sins and be welcomed into his kingdom.
"To which heresies are you referring? I can suggest a few for you to choose from: the Trinity (a pagan idea culled from Babylonian myth); Christmas and Easter (similarly derived from paganism); the virgin birth trope (prominent in every pagan cult that pre-dates Jesus); the abolition of slavery (Jesus never preached this rot!); human rights; democracy; tolerance for other faiths--and even, God-forbid, for non-belief. This list could get really long, but I'll just keep it short."
Ah, but are they "true Christians" or just more heretics?
I could point you to studies that show that religious affiliation is declining in the Western world. How do you explain that? Besides, you are a fundamentalist who believes there is only one true faith. Which Christian sect, specifically, do you claim is growing?
"And Christianity is not based upon circular the reasoning of a self referencing belief system: It is based upon the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead."
This is circular reasoning itself! You really need a course in logic. As for Pinch-ass, why should I believe what he says? This is an appeal to authority--illogical. All the pagan blood-savior cults claimed that their savior was raised from the dead. Christianity is nothing special.
"This resurrection either happened or it did not."
Then why do you choose to believe in Christianity without proof of the Resurrection? As you say: "the survival of Christianity, and Pinchas testimony concerning the resurrection do not prove it is true..." How do you know that other faiths are not true instead of Christianity? Have you investigated their claims with the same credulous enthusiasm you have put into confirming those of your own faith?
This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. For one thing, it begs the question whether the accounts found in the Bible are even true, or in fact merely fabrications published long after the events they purport to describe, and for the purpose of shoring up the faith of concurrent believers--as is actually the case. For another thing, you place the burden of proof on those who would doubt the resurrection. Why would you do that?
This is bullshit. Just because the Bible claims that Jesus said it was "a new commandment" doesn't prove that it was. That's called circular reasoning, remember? It also doesn't prove that it wasn't produced by the human imagination. It is easy to see how it could have been, as I have already shown. A Hebrew prophet, later named Jesus, may have seen all of the atrocities being committed for the sake of vengeance, and, as a reaction to this, dreamed up this precept.
I want you to realize that you are missing the point of Hitchens's challenge. It is unanswerable. That is the point. Anything you offer up as an answer proves the point by being something that you can, in fact, conceptualize yourself.
Begging the question is exactly the point. Christianity stands or falls upon the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul wrote concerning this that if Jesus did not rise from the dead he and the others who claimed to have seen him after the resurrection were liars and that those who believed this claim were deceived. However, Paul and all the other apostles (except John) of Jesus died as martyrs for their unchanging testimony that the resurrection occurred.
Of course the important distinction concerning this is that Paul and all the other apostles would have known that what they were claiming did not occur and would have had to have died for something they knew to be a lie. People have died for beliefs that they thought were true, but people do not die for something they know to be a lie. In addition you claim that the Gospels were written long after the supposed events. However, no scholar of any repute holds to this view.
This has been flagged as spam show
JESUS CHRIST, HIS CATHOLIC-UNIVERSAL-APOSTOLIC CHURCH, SACRAMENTS, THE BIBLE, MIRACLES, HEALINGS, ST. MARY APPARITIONS, MESSAGES FROM HEAVEN, SIGNS IN 2011 ARE NOT A MYTHOLOGY BUT THE REALITY !!!
GET READY FOR THE GREAT WARNING NOW!!!
thewarningsecondcoming . com
JezusSlave 1 month ago
I love how the theist totally ignores the challenge of a moral statement/deed that couldn't be done by a non-believer and a wicked statement/deed only a believer could. Hitch is right, I've seen/heard him put that question about 15 times now and the only answer he's ever received is crickets.
TomVodkaCollins 1 month ago in playlist More videos from Flirmy
I, and most spiritually-inclined people, would rather believe in a "celestial dictator" (as Hitchens accurately put it) commanding me to be moral than some impersonal software in my cells mandating vague morality with no real purpose but to perpetuate itself IF the third option of me being an autonomous Conscious Being wasn't an option... which isn't taught to us as children, Christian OR Atheist. Selfhood is nowhere to be found in Culture!!!
LordShivasServant 1 month ago in playlist Hitchens Debates McGrath on Religion
As a non-religious and non-atheist individual I can shed light on the question of morality and why Christians might get "stuck" on this point and ultimately "bought in".
"For the purpose of evolution and survival" is such a DRY and deflated reason for morality. It doesn't bring Consciousness into the picture at all. Neither camp believes in Consciousness, Christians replaced that with God and Atheists replaced that with Evolution. When really we have Souls, and immorality isn't conducive OR fun
LordShivasServant 1 month ago in playlist Hitchens Debates McGrath on Religion
atheistsblog.tumblr.com
m1nt101 5 months ago
oh wow. battle of the zion liars. hahahaha. Which liar is the most despicable. This should come down to the wire.
sssssjjjj1 1 year ago
When someone say to me they are religious it warns me they have a form of retardation. It also say to me if it wasn't for religion god made me to be possibly the biggest asshole on the planet.
JimmyGunXD556 1 year ago
The problem is one of *grounding*. The atheist, while morally good, cannot *ground* is moral objection to anything. No matter how hard he tries – it simply can’t be done. That said, the atheist should not care that this is the case. In other words, the atheist should say, “I do not care that I cannot ground my moral beliefs”. Nothing trumps their lack of belief.
kwmitch1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, APOSTOLIC CHURCH PROVIDES ALL SACRAMENTS AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE - OF THE LIVING GOD - THE BREAD OF LIFE IN THE EUCHARIST!
WITH 2,000 YEARS OF TRADITION AND SACRIFICES OF CHRISTIANS TODAY WE KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE AND SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST IS.
MANY PROPHECIES AND VISIONARIES.
THE REAL MIRACLES, EFFECTIVE EXORCISMS, INCCORUPT BODIES OF SAINTS,
YOUTUBE. COM / WATCH? V = S1TCWKCUWWY
JOHN 6: 32-66
JezusSlave 1 year ago
Wow. Roberts's admission that Christians are proud, primitive, lowborn dullards at 2:36, needing old Jewish fairytales to keep them from hubris, criminality, sexual bizareness, starting wars and so forth is the coolest thing I've ever heard a religious side say in an atheist vs. theist debate. The only religious person I've heard that acknowledged Atheists are more philanthropic, smarter, and commit lower crimes per capita by FAR.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays The very notion of residual morality that keeps most Western Atheists on the straight and narrow is that from the Judeo Christian branch. Wars don't start because of religion....not even The Crusades!
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland So is there a god or isn't there? If you believe there isn't and that religion is just a useful fabrication, then morality originated with mankind anyway, so there goes that argument. If you do believe, you're ignoring the fact that human society predates Christianity, so the influence of the Christian god isn't responsible for civil order. Your argument fails on both accounts.
Grak70 1 year ago
@Grak70 Some good points. On your first- if it were merely a "useful fabrication" then it is still a superstition that has formed the moral framework of the self same atheists to whom I referred. Nothing is really too different in that respect.
On the second point-Society on what level ? Filthy hominids huddled around a fire? The great and ancient societies (Persians, Egyptians, Mayans & the Chinese)that lifted man from the peat bog were all founded on religious principles and beliefs.
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland The idea that great societies had religion is not in contest. But when you ignore the fact that filthy hominids huddling around a fire ALSO had religion (and we know this from archaeology) you dismiss the correlation and imply causation. Regardless, you've failed to answer the underlying problem: if most ancient religions are wrong, then your preferred brand had nothing to do with their civilization. That means civil society is a product of man, not gods.
Grak70 1 year ago
@Grak70 Again, interesting points?Though there is clearly a theory of mind issue between us. You are attributing opinions to me that I haven't put forth. We are not chess pieces we can do things of our own volition, however these great societies did have at their cores strong religious ideologies. More primitive societies of the same eras may also have been religious but there is no evidence that earlier/different hominid species were .
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland The main thing religion was used for in those societies was to reinforce the divine or semidivine nature of the monarch, and waste valuable resources in burials and mourning periods. The Shang had oracle bones, Zoroastrianism coincided with an illiterate, prehistoric society on the decline, and lovely Mayan religion led to hearts being ripped out of virgins. As for no religious wars, look up the Baltic Crusades, the Albigensian Crusade, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Pope Urban II.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays We don't need religion to imbue divinity upon people we have media Gods everywhere and the adulation and devotion of their followers is unquestionable! As for the Shang and the Sun Worshippers we all need ritual we all want answers. (I think) Voltaire said that if God did not exist then man would need to create him.
As for those wars, I have read about many of the crusades and the underlying motive in all but one was power and money. Religion is merely a red herring.
PLScotland 1 year ago
Those monarchs wrapped themselves in the power structure of religions to disguise themselves as gods to control people, hence the "divine right of kings" or the "Son of Heaven." Power and money were indeed much of the motivation of the crusades, as was religion, inseparably. The Cathar suppression and Teutonic invasion of Lithuania alone can't be separated. Even if religion was being used merely as a trick to cover the real reason of land grabs, it would be good reason to be rid of it.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays Divine right of Kings, dude once again you go back to the dark ages to prove a point which merely shows how bad the moral decline of that period was per se, rather than how bad religion is. Is Henry VIII's claim to divine anointment any worse than the actual deification of Pol Pot, Josef Stalin or Mao. Is their atheism inseparable from their hunger for power?I'll be a little more charitable and concede that it is. The last statement.....we'll let you forget that one;)
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland You've got the wrong era, that's more like medieval through Englightenment. The difference is Henry VIII had an institutional backing with a long history and firm control over people's minds and loyalties. No such institution existed under Mao, etc. What did was credulity and totalitarianism. People were killed for suspected political dissidence, NOT believing in God, largely BY theists. I stand by religion as a mask for erstwhile aggrandizement, no reason for you to forget it.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
@PLScotland I believe you meant to say "separable," not "inseparable." If you mean to play the part of the smirking, condescending man of unassailable logic who charitably concedes points, pay attention to the wording of your invalid statements. Those men built a cult of personality, at best virtual rather than actual deification. Henry VIII is about 600 years from the Dark Ages, btw.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays You make some very subjective points which are completely incidental to even the broader content of this thread. I imagine when you sit your exams in school when stumped you score out the question and write " But wait heres one I know the answer to :)". For the record inseparable or separable the answer to either question reveals the same truth....really;)
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland They're objective points until you can intelligibly show them to be subjective. I've stayed entirely within the purview of the conversation. I didn't get stumped in college, I assisted professors when their knowledge was insufficient to answer students' questions. I'll consider this argument conceded.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
@JiangZiyaTabooDays For a kick off, your entire previous post consisted of nought but subjective points. You make assumptions about me and my line of argument. Purely subjective! Your point of the cult of personality-nominal? These monsters had the power of life over death and every visual tribute on paper or graven became the image of a living god.
The secular world is full of idolatry. Voltaire was right where there are no Gods there is a need to create them.
Oh and revise "Dark Ages".
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland Are you so daft to think that the world exists in a vacuum where only God or Stalin-like figures can be worshipped? The point is that credulity and herd mentality are dangerous, as opposed to independent thought and Enlightenment values. Stalin and religion belong to the former, my position belongs to the latter. The whole "crimes of atheism" is misrepresentation and fearmongering by the religious as a means of saying "Yeah, we're bad, but they're even worse!" Just a lie.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
Independent thought and herd mentality- Independent thought has led brilliant men to different conclusions. Russell could not believe in a greater power but his protege Wittgenstein could? Conformity has led men to accept many different dictates without question whether we refer to unquestioning belief in God or an acceptance of atheism/humanism. There are lots of individual variables out "there". Many accept Darwin but have never read O.O.S or D.O.M is this an advancement on blind faith?
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland I still do not think we are connecting on this issue. You claim that religion is the source of morality. Yet, if religion is just a useful mnemonic, you've proven nothing but that humans are good at codifying and enforcing rules. This assertion does nothing to suggest that the rule of law has any origin outside of our own faculties. As secular law demonstrates, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the same or better results without religious doctrine.
Grak70 1 year ago
@Grak70 Whether or not they were the first source, religions are source(s) of morality, the Judeo Christian tradition has been the source of the prevailing normal range of secular Western morality as it currently exists. I dispute whether we can recognise any real set of values that could be defined as exclusively secular due to the evolution of our current laws/beliefs from Christian origins. Of course I can no more prove they originated from God than I can disprove that they did.
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland And I'd contend that just because religions codify universal principles of morality, that doesn't mean that those principles originate with religion. Show me a society that DOESN'T have some kind of, at a minimum, restrictions on killing, theft, perjury, etc. You're making a causal connection where none is warranted. Your argument is just one big confused post-modernist mish-mash. I'm not sure what you're trying to defend if not moral absolutism based on religious dogma.
Grak70 1 year ago
@PLScotland As a matter of fact, while you may be right that religions are a source of morality (in a definitional sense of "moral"), they are also sources of both amoral and -immoral- proscriptions. Instructions on who and when you can enslave others as well as admonitions not mix fabrics or cut your beard: these are not moral edicts, yet they are treated as such. I think we can do better than that without being told.
Grak70 1 year ago
@PLScotland Right. Religion is flourishing in the third world, disappearing in civilized nations, crime and explosive birth rates are directly correlated to Judeo-Christian ensorcelment. I haven't believed in God for a second, I develop my own morality, I do good things for their own sake rather than to please a superstition and I didn't need primitive myths for it. Look up the 30 Years' War or any of the other "Wars of Religion" in the 16th and 17th centuries before you keep lying for God.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
BTW, Hitler was raised in a catholic house, Natzi soldiers made an alegence to god, and the currencey of the thrid reich had thological imagery e.g. churches, imprinted on it. There are also many quotes were Hitler appears to support christianity. So the jury is still out re hitlers faith
MrSyrett 2 years ago
The tired old body count arguement. Its such a red herring, and anyone that uses it needs to have a long think. The people that you list did not commit their crimes in the name of athiesm, unlike the crusades, inqusiton, modern day Jihad etc. Even if they did, what value is the arguement? Does it cancel out all the crimes committed by theists? All it proves that men are capable of evil deeds regardless of belief.
MrSyrett 2 years ago 2
Christopher Hitchens is sex on legs. Drunk.
salamirterra 2 years ago 5
Some people do positive moral actions precisely because of their belief in a God, and without that belief, would never have undertaken the moral action. To say that atheists are just as capable of performing any moral action means nothing. Nobody disputes that. What people do dispute is what actions theists and atheists actually undertake. Irrefutable proof that a belief (either accurate or inaccurate) in God contributes to society in a positive way.
barifkin31 2 years ago
Could you give examples of moral or ethical actions believers do that unbelievers don't do?
LordEsel88 2 years ago
No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't believe there are any actions that 'believers' do that 'unbelievers' don't. Both donate charity, give blood, recycle, etc. What I'm talking about is on a personal level. I believe that some believers do things PRECISELY because they believe, and for no other reason. That's not to say that they're better people or that they're more moral (in fact, it shows the opposite, if anything), but a belief in God DOES contribute to society.
barifkin31 2 years ago
@barifkin31 yeah it does contribute, go watch a beheading video and you will see
TheLydianRocks 1 year ago
8:05
Hitchens always asks this question, and I'm surprised people let him get away with it. Theists are not arguing that atheists are incapable of performing the same actions that theists can, but rather that atheists don't perform the same actions that theists do. It's not a question of capability but of actuality. Is Hitchens claiming that there has never been an action done in the name of or because of a belief in God? That's utter nonsense and blatantly false. (continued)
barifkin31 2 years ago
Oxford V Harvard - FIGHT!
TheConciseStatement 2 years ago
Oxford FTW!
MrSalamander7 2 years ago
K.O.!
HITCH WINS (again)
CONTINUE?
9-8-7....
TheConciseStatement 2 years ago
game over, man, game over
loosekarrott 1 year ago 2
Oxford.
Nosy1993 2 years ago
I agree with Hitch, some people do need to be shot. Mark Roberts, perhaps?
MRoane41 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I love Hitchens, but I heard him in one debate, (I think it was with Jay Richards) say that "nature knows" in the context of a conversation dealing with misacarriages and why they occur. So in other words "nature" or "God", what have you- is deliberate and decides on what and who stays and goes. Therefore "nature", "God" what have you, is a "celestial or cosmic dictator". He's gotta explain how he defends that logic.
Iluvpolitics114 2 years ago
Why the hell are you connecting nature to a god? Hitchens isn't making that link, you are!
jamesmagmar126 2 years ago
Not a "god". Not theism, but some form of humungous intelligence that may perhaps be entirely indifferent.
Kristophirst 2 years ago
How different is that? That is exactly what the ID people are promoting, and everyone can see that this intelligence is of course God.
jamesmagmar126 2 years ago
It doesn't have to do with science but the point he makes is that religion drove them to do those very immoral and disgusting things. Also, foreskin does have a purpose, it acts as a guard and preserves the sensitivity of the penis.
AdamNagele 2 years ago 4
More sensitivity?
I have serious forskin envy. lol
baeron84 2 years ago
What the hell have Hitchens' arguments on genital mutilation, vicarious redemption, the effects of religion on behaviour, morality etc etc to do with SCIENCE??? These are philosophical and ethical arguments, period. I am still waiting for an aswer to his question; "On what other grounds, religion excepted, what it be acceptable, or LEGAL, to take a knife/stone and cut off part of the body of your child? P.S. Why did GOD create foreskins on ALL mammals? No function? Poor design?
derek24hudson 2 years ago 2
Hitchens was explaining the folly of moral anti-realism because the question posed was dealing with christian objective morality. Hitchens showed how it is relative. You may want to have it explained scientifically; however, it was not within the scope of this discussion. I'm not really sure what you're getting upset for?
tireiron 2 years ago
Question : do foreskins, because they cover the sensitive part of the penis, lessen sexual desire due to lack of extra anatomical contact.. thereby leading to less copulation and less population. ?
geeoogle 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Christopher Hitchens has become something of a tin god for his doe-eyed fans. This man is not a practicing scientist and his arguments (for what they are worth), are really the products of the laborious efforts of other dedicated scientists, so it makes you wonder why this perpetually drunk and antagonistic fellow has managed to secure such fawning internet/youtube worshippers. He is no Richard Dawkins. Besides, being antitheist seems to me to be purely reactionary in its fuller context.
Obinna1 2 years ago
Actually, Hitchens, much like De Grasse and Dawkins is well spoken, intelligent, and isn't afraid to call anyone a dumbass. Those, imo are respectable qualities.
Atheism isn't reactionary any way. Annoyance, on the other hand, of some fools that try to foist their talking snakes and imaginary friends on everyone else... IS, indeed, reactionary.
Exmech2 2 years ago 11
@Exmech2 don't you ever worry that your entire position is really just the mirror reflection of an absurd caricature of a god you made up that no one (not even Christians) believes in? I would call that quite reactionary. Anyway, there are plenty of intelligent and honest atheists but you seem like the religious variety to my which is pretty ironic.
rgs11 9 months ago
@rgs11 I'm sorry, but I see no reason to be diplomatic when discussing the delusionary. There is no "religious variety" of atheism. Never was. This is an attempt at an insult the deluded came up with trying to claim that atheism is somehow related to religion. It isn't. Actually, the word wouldn't even need to be invented. After all, there is no word for not believing in Santa Clause.
Exmech2 9 months ago
@Exmech2 Dawkins is dry and boring and not well spoken at all. A pussy as a matter of fact, afraid to call people out
tjohn1986 8 months ago
Oh please. Was Jefferson a scientist? Thomas Paine?
Almost all of Hitchens arguments aren't even based on scientific methods, they are based on logic, human faculty and the larger picture from the standpoint of the species as a whole.
So ignoring the obvious falsehoods in your little screed here, I'd say Hitchens' arguments are more effective than any ones based on science.
Science can't disprove God, common sense can or at least diminish Him significantly.
F33bs 2 years ago 21
@F33bs Actually Jeffrson was a scientist of sorts. As vice president he delivered a lecture on fossils to the Americal Philosophical society and was the only president in his time to have read and understood Newton. If you want to know more about his scientific achievments I highly recommend the book "Science and the founding fathers" by Bernard Cohen.
Oh and logic is half of the scientific method, the other half is evidence.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 Yeah I know all that. None of it changes what I said.
F33bs 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 I should correct something you said in that comment. Evidence is half of the scientific method, the other half is formulating theories with which to test against evidence. However you dont use logic to formulate theories. You just seek patterns/make predictions.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Depends on what you mean by the word logic. By the common definition I am using 'logic' is a synonym for 'reasoning'. Finding a pattern is the act of inductive reasoning, making a prediction is the act of deductive reasoning.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@Tapecutter59 his point still stands on hitchens though and i think we would all agree there.. so would jefferson
whysers 1 year ago
@whysers Agreed, just pointing out that Jefferson had scientific cred in his own time as did several other "founding fathers", not the least of which was Ben Franklin.
Tapecutter59 1 year ago
@F33bs "Science can't disprove god" Um yes it can and it has plenty of times. In the bible it says God made man with Adam and Eve but science shows we evolved from less intelligent life forms. And every time logic and science battle battle, science wins because it's based on facts, and logic is based on speculation .Different people speculate things differently, but everybody agrees that 1 +1 = 2. Logic states that a ship that was made to to be unsinkable, won't sink. Look at the Titanic.....
kushsmokkeralt 7 months ago
@kushsmokkeralt That's the Christian conception of God, limited to only Christians.
F33bs 7 months ago
@F33bs is hitchens a scientist?
gbleines 5 months ago in playlist Hitchens Debates
@F33bs Actually Jefferson was something of a scientist. He was a palaeontologist, archaeologist and botanist and invented a special chilled container for transporting vaccines.
juikm 5 months ago
@F33bs If it's true that God can't be disproven, then it is also true that the concept can't be proven and therefore not falsifiable, making it an unreasonable and unscientific claim to make. However, the argument can be made that God is indeed disprovable. Stephen Hawking argues that since time and space were created together in the Big Bang that no time existed before that event wherein God could have caused the event. Others argue that the lack of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.
polystyleneman 5 months ago
we need to be a bit more discriminating, fellow Infidels. when believers prop their religion on scientific unknowns, it's our duty to call them on it every time
put the fuckers on the defense! demonstrate how science not being able to fully explain the source of the universe doesn't excuse them from believing in talking fire bushes and gods that care about their job interviews and football games.
they are shady. they'll only argue as Theist until you make it a liability or them.
watchzeitgeist 2 years ago 3
JLaw012 seems to be a fucking idiot.
billfred51 2 years ago
Morality comes from reciprocity and most social animals have this. Look at morality in Japan. A very atheistic country with very low crime, high levels of courtesy, etc.
Recent studies show the religious are most likely to break laws.
Onodera1980 2 years ago
Different cultures take their own subjective values to decide which so-called "objective" rules in a book to follow.
Even with these "objective" rules, they are still subjectively selected by man. One can be a theist and see that.
brutus149 2 years ago
does anyone know what the music at the beginning of the hugh hewitt show is?
UnknownSpartan5 2 years ago
its great to see a debate that doesn't involve shouting over eachother.
theREALshafan 3 years ago
I can't believe any one would argue the default belief would be that there is a Christian God whose son Jesus grew up in the Middle East and did all these things etc. etc. and the only evidence of it is a story passed down through 2 millenia. The bottom line is anyone who believes in religion usually does so because they have a strong interest in doing so - ie. go to heaven, so they have a much greater interest in discounting any argument against it than wanting to figure out the truth.
weversonman 3 years ago 2
You're waversonman...and the thing is some people should be more honest with themselfs. There is a great misunderstanding that alot Atheists are fighting against GOD and don't wanna go to heaven and therefore argue again it. NO, maybe some but most would love some kind of an afterlife, the difference is they accept the possiblity that there is none and are dealing with it head on unstead of clinging to faith blindly.
cupocity303 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchins is a self made philosopher, nothing more. He offers nothing in the way of proof to establish the non-existence of God other than the propensity of ALL men to sin (Whether he chooses to call moral deficiency by this moniker or not). This is no proof at all, other than that the Bible record is correct - "all have sinned" For example, it is no proof for his position to say that a Christian does evil. All this means is that the Christian in question is a hypocrite - as the Bible claims.
lexscripta1 3 years ago
Prove an invisible, undetectable faerie doesn't live in your butt. The burden of proof is on the one claiming the thing exists, not on those who disbelieve the claim because it's unsupported.
Grak70 3 years ago 11
I got a fairy in my butt. I can prove it!
*shart*lol
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
@Grak70 Nonsense, if people have believed for thousands of years in many divine beings and continue en masse to do so, then I rather think the burden of proof is still with those who want to affect(or impose) change.
PLScotland 1 year ago
@PLScotland People believed in dragons, fairies, demons, wood elves, and countless other nonsense before we woke up to reality as a species. Are you implying that the burden of proof was on the "fairie skeptics" at that time as well? If you do, I can understand why this is so confusing for you: post-modernist bullshit has a way of rotting the brain.
Grak70 1 year ago
Hitchens was educated in, Cambridge and Oxford university, where he read Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Hardly a self made philosopher, He has also worked and written for some of the most prestigious periodicals in the world. Considered one of America's top intellectuals and orators. Basically, you can disagree with him if you like, but your criticism is a pile of crap as it stands so far lexscripta1. It simply does not follow from your premise.
marsCubed 3 years ago
Yeah, I'd have been more impressed if he was self educated. But alas, filled his head up with deceptions from other institutions. Thats a shame, but its been happening for thousands of years.
He's pretty smart, I'll give him that. But, he is heading in the wrong direction.
Education is Indoctrination. Presuppositions direct your educational pursuits. ITS A FARCE.
Mark Roberts isn't a Good Bible Scholar either. But, he did a fair Job - mostly he was being courteous.
lexscripta1 3 years ago
very funny.
ashburnhouse 3 years ago
Okay, I'll try just one more here, then see what you respond with.
Indoctrination suggests lack of evidence, at least as you are posing it. We teach evolution and say 'here are the reasons and evidence.'
Religion is taught because 'this book says so, and we believe it'. Education is a farce, eh? So how, exactly are we to obtain knowledge of chemistry, biology, etc?
nixonfanatic 3 years ago
But evolution is still a theory, no one can prove how man or the solar systems came to be, it is a theory.
JLaw012 2 years ago
So then EVERYthing is 'just a theory', since nothing can be proven to a complete and total extent.
When something is called 'a theory' that means it has progressed from a hypothesis. Gravity is also 'a theory'. Want to argue its validity?
Here's the kicker: the theory of evolution by natural selection has NOTHING to do with origin. It is an explanation of how things progressed over time, after said origins. And, of course, it stands up to every test we can come up with, unlike faith.
nixonfanatic 2 years ago 3
What do they call it in school the "evolution theory" it is what it is, science changes it "theories" on it every 20 years or less. So what YOU believe today will probably be outdated in a decade or two. BOTH are based on FAITH, you have faith that mans theory is correct, some people have faith that the earth and solar systems were not caused by some collision of gasses and molecules billions of years ago. Either way its faith, no one knows for a fact.
JLaw012 2 years ago
The general definition of theory is not the same as a scientific theory. That should of been covered in your middle school science class. And creationism, faith, etc is not seen as a theory by believers. By calling evolution a theory, in an attempt to discredit it, all you're doing is showing your ignorance of science and what a scientific theory means.
2stagedeep 2 years ago
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Most Scientists call it a theory where have you been? they call it a theory for a reason, they cannot prove how man or the solar systems came about, that is just a simple fact so they make educated guesses based on the information they have, of course what about the information they don't have that could throw their theory off completely?
JLaw012 2 years ago
You are also confusing abiogenesis with evolution.
maggie378 2 years ago
Even by your own paragraph you are grossly misinterpreting the definition of faith. To be honest I'm not even sure you know exactly what that word means.
2stagedeep 2 years ago
No its not, faith is the trust or confidence in a something be it human/idols/Gods and believing what they say is true. You are not a scientist are you? Yet you put your "Faith" in them that they know what they are talking about,despite a long history of being wrong quite often.
JLaw012 2 years ago
2stage is right and we know exactly how solar systems form. Perhaps a community college Astronomy class would be of some help to you. You might actually learn something other than repeating its just a theory... its just a theory... its just a theory...
maggie378 2 years ago
Get off your high horse, we do NOT know exactly how our solar systems came from, The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations.
JLaw012 2 years ago
We do know exactly how our solar system came about.
You're thinking of how the universe came about. Which is explained by the big bang theory.
If you dont know the difference between a solar system, and the universe, you may need to take Maggie378 up on his/her offer of a community college astronomy course.
ByronC900 2 years ago
You mean where they teach the big bang theory as if it is fact? no thanks, i know the difference and they are both theoretical.
JLaw012 2 years ago
If you dont know the difference between a general theory and a scientific theory, then you should probably pick up a highschool science textbook.
Please, for your sake, stop posting. I'm feeling embarassed for you buddy.
ByronC900 2 years ago
Go ahead and look up the word THEORY for me please dickhead.
JLaw012 2 years ago
First definition that pops up in google when you type "Scientific Theory Definition":
'An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs.'
ByronC900 2 years ago
Or
"An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories"
a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
JLaw012 2 years ago
Yes.
You dont comprehend what you copied and pasted, do you?
ByronC900 2 years ago
it was the First definition that pops up in google when you type "Scientific Theory Definition" and YES i do.. maybe you should take some reading comprehension classes.
JLaw012 2 years ago
So how does repeating the mantra of 'Its just a theory, its just a theory!' help your cause, when you have just discovered what the definition of 'Scientific Theory' is, and that its an explanation of why and how a natural phenomenon occurs, supported by facts and evidence.
Such as... the Gravitational Theory. Do you think 'Gravity is just a theory'?
ByronC900 2 years ago
The point is we both rely on a faith of some sort, so you don't have any room to go around hounding people. Some believe that we were created and they have faith in a higher being, some have faith in man and their scientific observations.
JLaw012 2 years ago
Scientific observation and evidence are the opposite of faith.
You grossly misuse terms you have no comprehension of.
You're a sheep, desperately trying to defend your idiotic beliefs of magical sky daddy.
ByronC900 2 years ago
How many scientific observations over the last 200 years do we now look back on and laugh at?? You have Faith that the science of today is correct, based on its Current observations based on its current information which of course will be totally different 40 years from now or less. To think that this is all a big coincidence of gasses and molecules to me shows ignorance of the wonders found in nature and our university.
JLaw012 2 years ago
Not that it's "correct" in the absolute sense,.. just a hell of a lot better than any other account on offer.
analubalitious 2 years ago
I'd like to take you up on this challenge. How many scientific theories from the last 200 years do we now look back and laugh at? Please go ahead and name some of them. Please remember that you are going to name scientific theories that were accepted and later proven to be false. In other words, we are not going to talk about ideas that were proposed and rejected but rather hypotheses that passed through the scientific community, were accepted and later were shown to be completely false.
pmacgilli 2 years ago 2
melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming.
evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.
global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age:
Smoking is good for you.
There are 9 planets in our solar system
There are 30 orders of insects
There are 109 Elements in the Period Table
LSD caused chromosome damage
JLaw012 2 years ago
That's it? These are either ideas which never made it through the scientific method, are still debatably true or have been subject to normal revisions. Compared to the number of irrefutable advances useful to humans the "errors" you have mentioned are trivial. Worse still for your argument none of them are laughably false in the sense that they were ridiculous assertions. Now go walk around your house and make a list of all the things science HAS done just in the small space you call home.
pmacgilli 2 years ago
Oh now you are bringing up Scientific method, is that the ONLY thing that is declared Science then? So when the environmentalists say the"science is in" about global warming, they are all liars?
JLaw012 2 years ago
Yes in some cases they are either lying outright, doing so for effect or simply jumping the gun. My point is that claims made by individuals or groups that have not exposed their assertions to the rigorous checks and balances of the scientific community cannot be held up as failures of science. To answer your first point my answer is yes. If a hypothesis has not been tested by the scientific method it cannot claim to be science.
pmacgilli 2 years ago
So how do YOU determine which scientists are being truthful and which are sold out?? for example global warming, there are clear differences from each side...
JLaw012 2 years ago
I am not a scientist and as such am not in a position to pass judgment on the vast majority of modern science. Where are we going with this?
pmacgilli 2 years ago
Thanks for making my point. No one is in a position to pass judgment on anyone's opinion, be it scientific or religious. My problem is with the people who pretend that science is the end all be all.
JLaw012 2 years ago
why everyone using bad language?
trapozoidalsyth 2 years ago
Fuck you
shashintokyo 2 years ago
"He offers nothing in the way of proof to establish the non-existence of God other than the propensity of ALL men to sin"
This statement has so many flaws that it's not even amusing.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Yer because the default is that god exists!
No, its for you to prove that god does exist, otherwise all start at T=0 which is nothing!
An from nothing, the work is all yours to do.
Danni4815162342 3 years ago
Outline of a Simple Mind:
"the default is that god exists"
No, the default is non-belief.
"its for you to prove that god does exist"
You are making the claim. You need to support it. I am claiming ignorance, not a belief. You have missed the entire point.
"otherwise all start at T=0 which is nothing!
An from nothing, the work is all yours to do."
Your definitions betray you. Thanks for the laugh.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
First of all my comment was directed at lexscripta1 thats why its attached to his/her comment.
Not you HumanStrategy, you need to read my comment properly.
The first line is sarcastic, obvious to me and everyone else.
The second line tells you that, the "No" says it all really.
You need to actually read a comment before posting, your reply is that of a simple mind, or I bet a drunk mind, ranting on utube late at night.
So now you realise that we both hold the same point of view.
ROFL!
Danni4815162342 3 years ago
"your reply is that of a simple mind, or I bet a drunk mind, ranting on utube late at night."
It is 12:42pm right now where I am. I posted my previous message 23 hours before this, which means I posted it at around 1:42pm yesterday. I'm not sure what your definition of 'late' is...*sigh*
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Blech, I'm NOT claiming ignorance. Insofar as my senses - the only tools I have - lead me, there is not a god. Are you a theist, by the way?
The burden of proof is always on the theist. The fact is that 'atheists' don't only make a negative claim, we make a sincerely positive one: the disciplines of science posit a formative answer, in exclusion of theism.
I'm sorry if I got you wrong, but it seems like you're saying it's the atheist's job to DISprove god, which is patently false.
nixonfanatic 3 years ago
I think our conversation got mixed up. I find no argument with you. I was talking to Danni.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
hrm, rep to your comment to me. I think you're right. Might I ask what your 'belief system' is?
tend to agree, after digging into the long-winded comments on here, btw.
hitch = right on this topic I'd say...
nixonfanatic 3 years ago
I'm an atheist. Of course, I could hardly call the lack of a belief in a god(s) a 'belief system'. I think I understood what you meant by that in regard to this though.
HumanStrategy 3 years ago
Lets not forget that whole philosophies have been built on false premises. Mr Hitchins does this in every argument I have ever heard him extend. If those in mental institutions had the presence of mind to answer, they would tell you how dangerous it is to build reality on false assumptions.
lexscripta1 3 years ago
Explain the false premise, rather than cheap snickering. You have yet to rhetorically explain how Hitchens is wrong.
lollygager3664 3 years ago
A huge exercise in pomposity by both debaters. Roberts has built his fragile self-image on his Harvard degrees. If Hitchens is right, then Roberts isn't anyone SPECIAL, just another misguided Christian like any non-Harvard educated pastor. Since they start from mutually-exclusive, ultimately unprovable beiefs, they are talking apples and oranges and will never change each others' minds or those of the poor folks who had to endure this hot-air festival.
binskins 3 years ago
Atheism is not a belief, just the opposite. As for this kind of argumentation changing someone's mind, I am living proof that it can. And of course Roberts isn't anyone special; why should he be? You aren't anyone special (and neither am I), but I'm not interested in you; I am interested in your error and its exposure.
kingthamus 3 years ago
This type of argumentation (Roberts)changed my mind, all right - made me decide I could never remain a Christian and confine my questions and views to the inside of the bubble of a circular, self-referencing belief system untimately based on a choice as non-rational as my choice to practice no religion at all. Pompous asses, like Roberts, do the faith a disservice and lose as many or more believers as they save. Excuse me, now I'm off to write a check to Sarah Palin's opponant, Joe Biden.
binskins 3 years ago
Why do you say that your choice to practice no religion at all is non-rational? What motivated you to make that choice?
"...made me decide I could never remain a Christian and confine my questions and views to the inside of the bubble of a circular, self-referencing belief system..."
Sounds pretty rational to me.
kingthamus 3 years ago
The account of Jacob's sons response to the rape of their sister in the book of Geneis demonstrates that one of Hitchin's basic premises is wrong. Namely, the idea of justice before Sinai and after.
The response to the rape, even after the rapist desires to marry the sister and joins cultures, is to deceive them into thinking they will make peace and then to kill all the males in the town, take the woman and children captive. Jacob's response is not outrage but fear of similar retaliation.
514stop 3 years ago
The "Eye for and Eye" received from Sinai, limited retaliation and promoted justice based upon the premise that the punishment must fit the crime. In addition Hitchins also asked for a moral precept that could not have originated in the mind of man. I would suggest Jesus" commandment to "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you". Such a precept hardly fits the notion of the survival of the fittest.
514stop 3 years ago
"Such a precept hardly fits the notion of the survival of the fittest."
How do you know? Are you an expert in evolutionary psychology? Do you know anything at all about this field? Perhaps you should check into it.
Besides this, you must be made aware that your statement assumes that merely because Jesus uttered a precept, it is moral--or that it is the only option for morality--as though morality was in fact handed down from above. In other words, you are begging the question.
kingthamus 3 years ago
Hi king Interesting. Hitchins asks for a moral precept that contradicts the survival of the fittest and I present one and you suggest that because I am not an expert on "evolutionary psychology" my statement is not correct and that it may not even be a moral precept. How do you know that "evolutionary psychology" is true? I know: because the "evolutionary psychologists" say it is Hitchins didn't ask for a moral precept that was indeed moral but simply for a moral precept I answered his challenge
514stop 3 years ago
And by the way, I was not saying that because Christianity survived for so long it must be true. I'm saying that according to the theory of survival of the fittest concerning moral precepts that were actually practiced, Christianity should not have survived.
514stop 3 years ago
When should it have died out, and how do you know it is not in the process of doing so? You don't seem to grasp the ideas you are railing against, and I suspect you are misapplying them.
kingthamus 3 years ago
Furthermore, you do realize, do you not, that Christianity as a whole is EVOLVING?
QED.
kingthamus 3 years ago
Since Hitchins is a Darwinist, when he says "human imagination" he is speaking from this world view's perspective. I have not created a straw man and have certainly answered his challenge. More later.
514stop 3 years ago
And by the way, should I accept as true your statement that evolutionary psychology's theories have much more explanatory power than those put forth by theistic moralists because you say they do; or should I just take the evolutionary theorists' word for it on this matter? And Christianity is not evolving. The new heresies concerning the faith are nothing more than the old heresies under a different guise. More to follow.
514stop 3 years ago
And here is another moral precept that could not have originated from human imagination and therefore the survival of the fittest evolutionary world view: "A new commandment I give to you; love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another". It is a moral precept that has survived for 2000 years and is upheld as a standard which judges all other standards of love produced by the human imagination.
514stop 3 years ago
You simply are uneducated in the theories you are dismissing. Research reciprocity theory and investigate the evidence for altruism in nature for starters. In other words, shut up until you know something.
kingthamus 3 years ago
No, don't take my word for it. Educate yourself, by all means. Christianity IS evolving. You are merely a fundamentalist with your head up your ass. Why should I accept your view that "Christianity" can only refer to a static belief system frozen at a certain point in time? Do you think homosexuals should be stoned to death, for example? Is that what Jesus would do? It's what he (the Logos) commanded before he was born as a man. Christianity is not evolving=absurd.
kingthamus 3 years ago
I'll push you further. If you want to claim that "Christianity" is not evolving, then explain the Reformation, the English Civil Wars, the abolitionist movement among Christians, and the official "Christian" position on stem-cell research. But you must do so without referencing the ideas of anyone born after the moment in history at which your "true Christianity" is calcified.
kingthamus 3 years ago
To which heresies are you referring? I can suggest a few for you to choose from: the Trinity (a pagan idea culled from Babylonian myth); Christmas and Easter (similarly derived from paganism); the virgin birth trope (prominent in every pagan cult that pre-dates Jesus); the abolition of slavery (Jesus never preached this rot!); human rights; democracy; tolerance for other faiths--and even, God-forbid, for non-belief. This list could get really long, but I'll just keep it short.
kingthamus 3 years ago
I see your propensity for faith has led you to put words in this man's mouth. If you want to argue against the evidence for the evolution of morality, you first have to know something about what the theories say. Why do you refuse to educate yourself, while maintaining that you are correct, in spite of your willful ignorance? Oh, right: self-righteousness, the defining characteristic of the believer.
kingthamus 3 years ago
You have created a straw man (and pitifully failed to knock it down), and you did not answer his challenge, as I have amply demonstrated.
kingthamus 3 years ago
"I'm saying that according to the theory of survival of the fittest concerning moral precepts that were actually practiced, Christianity should not have survived."
"When should it have died out, and how do you know it is not in the process of doing so?"
I'm interested to know whether you concede this point, or whether you were ignoring this exchange merely because you are intellectually dishonest.
kingthamus 3 years ago
The belief that a Jew crucified 2000 years ago, (a fate suffered by countless Jews and Gentiles) was the Savior of the world was a hard sell to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Both cultures resisted the notion and indeed their ruling powers sought to destroy this belief system. The survival of this faith which demanded that its adherents must emulate their crucified leaders example concerning "love your enemies" despite the fact that theses enemies were seeking your extinction
514stop 3 years ago
My previous response (which I posted once before and which you ignored) indicates I don't concede the point and explains why I have not created a straw man and have indeed responded to Hitchins' challenge. There is no moral precept in human history produced by the human imagination in the category of "Love your enemy" or "A new commandment I give you: love one another; as I have loved you so you must love one another".
514stop 3 years ago
Christianity, If Jesus had not risen from the dead, should have never survived 51 days. (Day 51 was one day after the feast of Pentecost when the apostles first preached the Gospel in Jerusalem.) The reason being that Jerusalem was the place where Jesus had been killed and the easiest place to prove that the resurrection had not occurred. The fact that it survived, by seeking to follow Jesus' example not only day 51 but the ensuing persecution by hostile Governmnets. indicates Jesus rose.
514stop 3 years ago
And Christianity is not based upon circular the reasoning of a self referencing belief system: It is based upon the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead. This resurrection either happened or it did not. Pinchas Lapides, a former member of the Israeli Gov. and Hebrew scholar and not a Christian wrote the book "The resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish perpective". In this book he argues that the evidence for the resurrection is so compelling that he is convinced of its historicity.
514stop 3 years ago
While the survival of Christianity, and Pinchas testimony concerning the resurrection do not prove it is true, they provide evidence could lead one to that conclusion. You ask how I know that the faith is not dying out? My response is that there is not indication that this is happening. Indeed, even in China where only certain denominations approved by the State are allowed, there is a booming underground Christian movement.
514stop 3 years ago
Concerning my being a fundamentalist with my head planted firmly in the area of my posterior, I offer the following: The gospel is based upon fundamental truths: namely that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead according to the scriptures. This life, death and resurrection have provided the means by which all who believe in Jesus, can by the grace of God, be reconciled to God and saved from the consequences of their sins and be welcomed into his kingdom.
514stop 3 years ago
I rest my case. Thank you for confirming it.
kingthamus 3 years ago
"To which heresies are you referring? I can suggest a few for you to choose from: the Trinity (a pagan idea culled from Babylonian myth); Christmas and Easter (similarly derived from paganism); the virgin birth trope (prominent in every pagan cult that pre-dates Jesus); the abolition of slavery (Jesus never preached this rot!); human rights; democracy; tolerance for other faiths--and even, God-forbid, for non-belief. This list could get really long, but I'll just keep it short."
kingthamus 3 years ago
Ah, but are they "true Christians" or just more heretics?
I could point you to studies that show that religious affiliation is declining in the Western world. How do you explain that? Besides, you are a fundamentalist who believes there is only one true faith. Which Christian sect, specifically, do you claim is growing?
kingthamus 3 years ago
"And Christianity is not based upon circular the reasoning of a self referencing belief system: It is based upon the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead."
This is circular reasoning itself! You really need a course in logic. As for Pinch-ass, why should I believe what he says? This is an appeal to authority--illogical. All the pagan blood-savior cults claimed that their savior was raised from the dead. Christianity is nothing special.
kingthamus 3 years ago
"This resurrection either happened or it did not."
Then why do you choose to believe in Christianity without proof of the Resurrection? As you say: "the survival of Christianity, and Pinchas testimony concerning the resurrection do not prove it is true..." How do you know that other faiths are not true instead of Christianity? Have you investigated their claims with the same credulous enthusiasm you have put into confirming those of your own faith?
kingthamus 3 years ago
This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. For one thing, it begs the question whether the accounts found in the Bible are even true, or in fact merely fabrications published long after the events they purport to describe, and for the purpose of shoring up the faith of concurrent believers--as is actually the case. For another thing, you place the burden of proof on those who would doubt the resurrection. Why would you do that?
kingthamus 3 years ago
This is bullshit. Just because the Bible claims that Jesus said it was "a new commandment" doesn't prove that it was. That's called circular reasoning, remember? It also doesn't prove that it wasn't produced by the human imagination. It is easy to see how it could have been, as I have already shown. A Hebrew prophet, later named Jesus, may have seen all of the atrocities being committed for the sake of vengeance, and, as a reaction to this, dreamed up this precept.
kingthamus 3 years ago
I want you to realize that you are missing the point of Hitchens's challenge. It is unanswerable. That is the point. Anything you offer up as an answer proves the point by being something that you can, in fact, conceptualize yourself.
kingthamus 3 years ago
Begging the question is exactly the point. Christianity stands or falls upon the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul wrote concerning this that if Jesus did not rise from the dead he and the others who claimed to have seen him after the resurrection were liars and that those who believed this claim were deceived. However, Paul and all the other apostles (except John) of Jesus died as martyrs for their unchanging testimony that the resurrection occurred.
514stop 3 years ago
Of course the important distinction concerning this is that Paul and all the other apostles would have known that what they were claiming did not occur and would have had to have died for something they knew to be a lie. People have died for beliefs that they thought were true, but people do not die for something they know to be a lie. In addition you claim that the Gospels were written long after the supposed events. However, no scholar of any repute holds to this view.