Hitchens: Christianity is a fraud if it’s not literally true

[Malerin]

Which means you are wrong about what an atheist is. Hint: a theist has a belief in god. A means without so atheism is without belief in god. Where exactly does that say anything about god existing or not existing?

You're describing weak atheism. Strong atheism, which is very popular here, makes a strong ontological claim: there is no God (or it is very unlikely that God exists).

 

[Eric D]

Very simple. When you argue that you must have proof that god does not exist in order to conclude that there is no god, because "there's so much about the universe left unexplained", then you are arguing that I must consider that the existence of absolutely anything and everything is possible (since it is impossible for me to prove that anything does not exist).

Like those giant farting space dragons.

And by the way...I hope you appreciate the irony...
There were no insults in my 'diatribe' (nor was it particularly long); I was simply using a suitably ridiculous example to demonstrate how ridiculous your whole "you can't prove god exists, or doesn't exist, so atheists are wrong to conclude there is not god" argument. I don't see the existence of a god as being any more likely or realistic than the existence of giant farting space dragons.

However, you have already been censured several times for blatant (and yes, childish) personal attacks in this thread. I'm afraid you are very much coming out on the losing side of this particular debate.

We're past the whole childish insults thing, so come off it already and put it behind you as it has nothing to do with who is right or wrong.


Define "giant farting space dragons." Define "God" for that matter. The ridiculousness of either claims depends on what the definition is. An extra terrestrial lifeform that's large, reptillian, flatulent and has mastered space travel doesn't seem impossible to me. Improbable, yes. If someone were to claim it's existence, I'd need proof first, but I don't totally dismiss the idea.

I understand that there is zero evidence to back either claim, but I won't take any position on it beside the position that there is no evidence and that I will not give credence to either until said evidence is presented. It doesn't mean I vehemently take a stance against it, which is what a lot of athiests do.

And no, I'm not saying you have to recognize that anything is possible. There are claims that we have an overwhelming amount of evidence against. That's not the same as having zero evidence. There are things we know are impossible because we can observe how certain things work in the natural world. For instance, we know it's impossible to live (or at least live more than a few seconds) without your head. If someone said "Decapitate me and I will pick up my head, screw it back on and walk out the door." we can very well prove him wrong.

No, I don't believe in god, farting space dragons, or fsm. Everything that we understand about the natural world tells us that none of this exists. I'm simply leaving the door open for someone to prove it to me. I'm not completely shutting out the idea, no matter how silly it is.

 

[Wolfman]

And no, I'm not saying you have to recognize that anything is possible. There are things we know are impossible because we can observe how certain things work in the natural world. For instance, we know it's impossible to live (or at least live more than a few seconds) without your head. If someone said "Decapitate me and I will pick up my head, screw it back on and walk out the door." we can very well prove him wrong.

Actually, you are wrong in this argument. It is possible to prove that a particular individual cannot live without their head (albeit it would require their decapitation to prove it); but it is not possible to prove that, for every person who ever has existed, or ever will exist, that it would be impossible for them to live without their head (unless you were to find some way to decapitate every person who ever has or will live). We make this assumption based on observations of how things work, and extend the information we've thus far compiled.

To take your argument...prove to me that it is impossible for any person who has ever lived, in the history of the world, to have lived with their head cut off. You cannot prove it. Therefore, by your own argument, you must consider it at least a possibility that a person can live with their head cut off.

In short -- the only logical conclusion from your initial argument is that one must consider everything to be possible...it is impossible to discount anything as impossible, or non-existent.

ETA: It should be noted that while I consider it a reasonable belief that it is impossible to literally be dead for three days, and then come back to life, there are hundreds of millions of people in this world who believe it has happened at least twice (Lazarus and Jesus). For such people, believing that a person could have their heads cut off and still live would not be a terribly great leap of faith...so go ahead, prove to those people that its impossible. The best you can do is prove that they can't live with their heads cut off.

Another ETA: It is possible to disprove individual claims (ie. I claim that I can live without my head); but impossible to disprove universal claims (ie. it is impossible for anyone to live without their head).

 

[Marduk]

No, I don't believe in god, farting space dragons, or fsm.

no one believes in the Fsm, thats kinda the point

To take your argument...prove to me that it is impossible for any person who has ever lived, in the history of the world, to have lived with their head cut off.

wait, is Walt Disneys head officially dead or just resting ?

 

[Ethnikos]

Hitchens: Christianity is a fraud if it’s not literally true
Hehe

The Minister is really off.

Wilson said. "Christianity is not good for the world because it makes people decent and sober and that sort of thing. . ."

That is the purpose for Christianity!
What other purpose could there possibly be?

 

[Eric D]

Actually, you are wrong in this argument. It is possible to prove that a particular individual

I was speaking only of that particular individual. It is possible to prove him wrong (by decapitating him), therefore, somethings can be proven wrong and deserve less consideration than something that has zero evidence backing it's claim. Do you agree?

 

[Marduk]

The Minister is really off.


That is the purpose for Christianity!
What other purpose could there possibly be?

population control
you know it

and for the third time answer the question Ethnikos, before it starts following you around and pops up in your in box daily
whats the earliest childhood memory you have and how old were you ?

 

[Wolfman]

I was speaking only of that particular individual. It is possible to prove him wrong (by decapitating him), therefore, somethings can be proven wrong and deserve less consideration than something that has zero evidence backing it's claim. Do you agree?

Actually, I added the following ETA at the same time you made your post:

Another ETA: It is possible to disprove individual claims (ie. I claim that I can live without my head); but impossible to disprove universal claims (ie. it is impossible for anyone to live without their head).

One cannot equate individual claims and universal claims. If you personally claim that you are an immortal god, I can fairly easily disprove that claim; if you claim that an immortal god exists somewhere, it is impossible to disprove.

As I said originally...your argument implicitly requires that I believe anything is possible (with the caveat that we are talking about universal claims about reality, not individual claims). That I must lend equal credence to any and all claims, regardless of how ridiculous or stupid they are, simply because "I can't prove it doesn't exist". If you want to believe that...its fine. But please don't expect me to consider that a rational or logical view of the universe and reality.

 

[cisco]

You can be 100% sure. The mythological god of the bible has a contradicting definition and just as a square circle can't exist neither can he/she/it.

Yabut there's the 0.000000001% chance that he just wants us to think that . Maybe I should've added a few dozen more zeros.

 

[Eric D]

To take your argument...prove to me that it is impossible for any person who has ever lived, in the history of the world, to have lived with their head cut off. You cannot prove it. Therefore, by your own argument, you must consider it at least a possibility that a person can live with their head cut off.

That's true, I should have thought it through more before posting it, but the point is if someone makes the claim he can live without his head, you can prove him wrong. You have the means. When it comes to things outside the natural world, we don't have the means.

 

[Eric D]

Actually, I added the following ETA at the same time you made your post:
One cannot equate individual claims and universal claims. If you personally claim that you are an immortal god, I can fairly easily disprove that claim; if you claim that an immortal god exists somewhere, it is impossible to disprove.

As I said originally...your argument implicitly requires that I believe anything is possible (with the caveat that we are talking about universal claims about reality, not individual claims).

There are universal claims that we have proven wrong. Like the claim that the Earth is flat. We know that it isn't beyond the shadow of a doubt. We have the means to observe the earth from a view point that we didn't have before. If I lived in a distant future where we had the means to observe farting space dragons, and we happened upon them, I would believe in farting space dragons. If we had the means to visit realms outside the natural world, other universes and dimensions are now accesible to us, and we discovered beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god, I would then consider myself an athiest and reject the idea of agnosticism.

 

[Ethnikos]

population control
you know it

and for the third time answer the question Ethnikos, before it starts following you around and pops up in your in box daily
whats the earliest childhood memory you have and how old were you ?

Did you bother checking in the thread where you originally asked the question? I answered it.
If you want to continue the discussion, you might want to go to the "First Post and Thanks. . ." thread.
I'm starting to worry about your sanity.

 

[Eric D]

As I said originally...your argument implicitly requires that I believe anything is possible (with the caveat that we are talking about universal claims about reality, not individual claims).

And as I have said, no it doesn't. It does not require you to believe it possible that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth and that the stars are the sun's children. All these would be universal claims and fall into the "anything" and "everything" category. We already know these things are not true because the earth, sun, and stars are observable to some extent. We have evidence against those claims.

Unfortunately it does mean that ghosts, FSM, and your new one GFSD are possible. Although all are ridiculous they are possible.

 

[Snixtor]

It is possible to disprove individual claims (ie. I claim that I can live without my head); but impossible to disprove universal claims (ie. it is impossible for anyone to live without their head).

Well, you know, even that's a bit of a grey distinction. If you claim that you can live without your head, I cut it off and you immediately die, it hasn't proven that you can not (or rather, could not) live without your head. It simply means that on that particular occasion, decapitation was fatal. It's still a little bit too generalised. The claim would need to be more like "if you cut my head off right now, I will continue to live for many years". "Live without my head" could include some sort of life support system.

Incidentally, is this straying a bit off topic?

 

[quixotecoyote]

As much as I would wish it, I would be extremely cautious of calling that evidence. All it really describes is how life, on this planet, can survive in areas we never once thought possible.

At the risk of a derail, we know life exists, we know planets exist, we know that it's happened at least once before, we have some idea of how.

This puts us miles ahead of a god-hypothesis in the evidence game.

If you want a god-analog, you're back to farting invisible dragons.

 

[Smiledriver]

Apparently Hitchens says this, "They say, well the Bible story's not really true, they're morality tales. Don't listen to it, because if it's based on a fraud, if the virgin birth and the resurrection and the miracles did not occur, which they did not, then those teachings are immoral, they teach that sins can be forgiven by throwing them on to a scapegoat -- a positively wicked doctrine."

But he doesn't explain what and why it is wicked.

If you can say that I have been forgiven by someone whom I have wronged...fine.

If you say I have tried my best to atone for my trangressions...great.

If you say, and BTW desire, a state of affairs whereby you are "made clean" as though you did no wrong in the first place you like the idea of not being responsible for your actions. Any durable system of morality must have some sense of accountability to it. Christianity employs a scapegoat: Christ. Therefore it is wicked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Most so called Agnostics like Eric D seem to wallow in a middle pseudo-intellectual position as if by claiming to not know, it makes them seem the reasonable. There is nothing reasonable to not take a position on something(and often for these agnostics just ONE thing ie god) that has no evidence to support its existence.

Their position is basically a double standard and they are proud of it.

I think you hit the nail on the head for a lot of agnostics. Ignoring the evidence that gods are mythical beings is politically convenient. You needn't confront the ignorance of people's beliefs in myths (I'll probably catch flak for that one but I'm still going to call it as I see it).

I think it takes a bit of courage to speak out that god beliefs are ignorant. Well over half the human beings on this planet still believe in mythical beings. Just change the word, god, to a specific one, Zeus, for example. Imagine if over half the human population still believed in Zeus. We would have no problem recognizing the foolishness of such a belief. Why is it so hard to see the obvious evidence this is true for all gods that people believe in?

But many skeptics learned somewhere along the way that there was an out. You need not confront such foolish beliefs. You can fall back on science and claim that since we cannot prove no gods exist we don't have to view god beliefs as being as ignorant as believing in Zeus.

That would be valid except it ignores the evidence. After you determine Zeus is a myth and Ra and Thor and Pele and so on and so on, you have overwhelming evidence gods are mythical beings. There is no other evidence. How many agnostics truly believe they must also be agnostic about fairies and Leprechauns because after all, one cannot prove such beings do not exist. I would wager lip service is paid to the fact one cannot prove there are no invisible pink unicorns but there is no way people truly buy that as any more than a scientific principle. But when it comes to god myths, somehow now the principle takes on more significance. There could be real gods.

Baloney. There is no more reason to be agnostic about gods than there is reason to be agnostic about goblins under your bed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"By the way, your side seems to be winning in public schools, at least across America," Carlson told Hitchens.

"Your side", "winning in public schools"... clearly 'their side' thinks separation of church and state is a threat to their ability to indoctrinate the next generations. In the past such people just sent their kids to private schools. Now they want their religion incorporated into public schools instead.

I like the way Hitchen's didn't let her get away with it. Science will win out over pseudoscience every time. I believe that is true, but the threatened religious groups do slow things down a bit in terms of scientific progress.


It was interesting the "Evangelical Theologian" as they labeled the pastor, is arguing the Bible has to be literal (at least the Jesus story and probably with that, the original sin story), or else they have nothing. I think this is why the Evangelicals fight so hard to disprove evolution theory. It essentially undermines their entire religious premise.

 

[Puppycow]

No, not everything is as black and white as that. Either it is or it isn't?

And yes, Jesus, if he existed at all, was merely human and possibly a great moral teacher.

OK, here's why. (Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis's reasoning)

If a mortal man (like you or me) offered to forgive you and absolve you for all of your sins against third parties if only believe in him and pray to him for forgiveness, it would be very presumptuous and ridiculous.

I mean, think about it: If I offered to accept a punishment on behalf of a murderer and thereby forgive him of all his sins if only he believes that I am God, wouldn't that be a very presumptuous and ridiculous thing if it happens to be that I am not God?

 

[Eric D]

Well, you know, even that's a bit of a grey distinction. If you claim that you can live without your head, I cut it off and you immediately die, it hasn't proven that you can not (or rather, could not) live without your head. It simply means that on that particular occasion, decapitation was fatal. It's still a little bit too generalised. The claim would need to be more like "if you cut my head off right now, I will continue to live for many years". "Live without my head" could include some sort of life support system.

If you'll look back at the post, you'll see I said "If someone said "Decapitate me and I will pick up my head, screw it back on and walk out the door." we can very well prove him wrong."