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

[Puppycow]

The Minister is really off.


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

To make people feel better about dying?
So that clerics can make a living?

 

[Eric D]

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?

If half the poplation believed in Zeus it would mean that a lot of people would have a problem recognizing the foolishness of such a belief. Unless you think they would recognize the foolishness and believe in Zeus anyway.

Who is "we"? Agnostics? The population in general?

Furthermore, why is Zeus a less believable diety than any other god? If half the population believed in Zeus, it would be a major world religion and perhaps the Christian God would be widely considered mythology.

 

[Hux]

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.

Yes. At the risk of a derail, this is no evidence as you or I would know it. For the record, there's as much evidence for farting dragons as there is for Gods coming back from the dead.

How is it therefore that Christians will sit here bare faced and tell us their God did just that when, for the very same reasons we do, they reject any notion of any of the countless other Gods to do the same trick?

I think the early church was literally fraudulent. All their claims were made upon contingency, power control and agreement by committee. I dare say early Christians in themselves weren't fraudulent; they actually thought this crap was true. But in denying the progress of the human individual mind, our daily and universal observations and the evolution of our knowledge, modern Christians are perpetuating the fraud.

Hitchens is right in one sense; if its not true then its a fraud perpetrated by a select few and perpetuated by millions of the gullible and credulous.

Furthermore, why is Zeus a less believable diety than any other god?

Speak for yourself. I think Zeus has as much credibility as Jesus. Funnily, christians dont get that for some reason.

 

[Eric D]

Speak for yourself. I think Zeus has as much credibility as Jesus.

So do I. I was asking skepticgirl a question.

She said "Imagine if over half the human population still believed in Zeus. We would have no problem recognizing the foolishness of such a belief.

I said: "why is Zeus a less believable diety than any other god?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If half the poplation believed in Zeus it would mean that a lot of people would have a problem recognizing the foolishness of such a belief. Unless you think they would recognize the foolishness and believe in Zeus anyway.

Who is "we"? Agnostics? The population in general?

Furthermore, why is Zeus a less believable diety than any other god? If half the population believed in Zeus, it would be a major world religion and perhaps the Christian God would be widely considered mythology.

"We" as in the skeptics who insist one cannot prove gods don't exist therefore agnosticism is the proper position.

The recognition that is lacking in many agnostic skeptics is the recognition there is not a single god that is more credible than Zeus, including the Deist god.

 

[Eric D]

Funnily, christians dont get that for some reason.

Yes, a lot, if not most or all of them don't. It's sad.

"There ain't no Zoose throwing lighting bolts down from a mountain! There's a Jesus in the clouds!"

 

[Hux]

"We" as in the skeptics who insist one cannot prove gods don't exist therefore agnosticism is the proper position.

The recognition that is lacking in many agnostic skeptics is the recognition there is not a single god that is more credible than Zeus, including the Deist god.

Hmmm. You might get an argument over that one.

 

[Eric D]

"We" as in the skeptics who insist one cannot prove gods don't exist therefore agnosticism is the proper position.

The recognition that is lacking in many agnostic skeptics is the recognition there is not a single god that is more credible than Zeus, including the Deist god.

Assuming you know what most agnostics think is more credible. I'm as open to the possibillity of Zeus as I am any other god. It's just a different way of saying the same thing.

 

[Wolfman]

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.

You don't seem to understand the difference between individual claims and universal claims. Saying "The Earth is flat" is not a universal claim, it is an individual claim (applying to only one planet); saying "It is impossible to have a flat earth/planet" would be a universal claim. Yes, you can prove that the Earth is not flat; but I defy you to prove that there does not exist, somewhere in this vast universe, a planet that is flat.

Your arguments in regards to god are universal claims...you very clearly stated that you are talking about the entire universe, and the fact that it is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a god of some kind does not exist in our universe.

Simply take "god" and substitute any other word, and you've got exactly the same argument:

It is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a giant farting space dragon does not exist in our universe

It is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a human who can live with their head cut off does not exist in our universe

It is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a completely flat planet does not exist in our universe

It is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a insert whatever does not exist in our universe

Does this mean that I'm unreasonable to state that giant farting space dragons don't exist? Or that humans cannot live with their heads cut off? Or that a planet that is completely flat is a physical impossibility?

Or...that god doesn't exist?

I'd say no. Because the alternative -- as I've said time and time and time again -- is to subject oneself to absurdity. I am quite confident in stating -- with absolute certainty -- that there are no giant farting space dragons, or humans who can live with their heads cut off. The lack of proof that these things don't exist does not in any manner, shape, or form render me uncertain, or unwilling to reach such a conclusion. It is, rather, the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever to support those claims, combined with rational evaluation of existing evidence regarding the nature of the universe and how it works that leads me to that conclusion.

Just as it leads me to the conclusion that there is no god.

 

[Hux]

I'd say no. Because the alternative -- as I've said time and time and time again -- is to subject oneself to absurdity. I am quite confident in stating -- with absolute certainty -- that there are no giant farting space dragons, or humans who can live with their heads cut off. The lack of proof that these things don't exist does not in any manner, shape, or form render me uncertain, or unwilling to reach such a conclusion. It is, rather, the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever to support those claims, combined with rational evaluation of existing evidence regarding the nature of the universe and how it works that leads me to that conclusion.

Just as it leads me to the conclusion that there is no god.

Thank you. That's what I would have liked to have said had I been eloquent enough to say it.

 

[Mr Clingford]

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.

I agree that some people see Xtianity as a 'Get out of jail free' card and absolve themselves of responsibility for their lives believing God takes care of everything. But there are others who see Xtianity involving the development of taking responsibility for oneself, one's actions and their consequences. The Christ doesn't change that.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I agree that some people see Xtianity as a 'Get out of jail free' card and absolve themselves of responsibility for their lives believing God takes care of everything. But there are others who see Xtianity involving the development of taking responsibility for oneself, one's actions and their consequences. The Christ doesn't change that.

Of course, once they get to that point they're far enough along the 'construct your own religion buffet' that discussing their beliefs in terms of Christianity is problematic.

The focal point of Christianity as a religion is the death/resurrection of Christ and what it symbolizes. That's the major separation from Judaism. Once you wave that away and say that the sacrifice of Christ is irrelevant to Christianity, I have to ask what religion you're actually talking about.

 

[Hux]

Take away the resurrection of Jesus and you have no christianity.

 

[sphenisc]

It's not exactly original to Hitchens - 1 Cor 15:14-19

 

[paximperium]

Furthermore, why is Zeus a less believable diety than any other god? If half the population believed in Zeus, it would be a major world religion and perhaps the Christian God would be widely considered mythology.

Think about that for a moment. Why would Zeus be more credible in such a situation?

 

[~enigma~]

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).

No, i am describing what the word means.

 

[paximperium]

No, i am describing what the word means.

Not according to Malerin's own made up definition.

 

[Eric D]

You don't seem to understand the difference between individual claims and universal claims. Saying "The Earth is flat" is not a universal claim, it is an individual claim (applying to only one planet); saying "It is impossible to have a flat earth/planet" would be a universal claim. Yes, you can prove that the Earth is not flat; but I defy you to prove that there does not exist, somewhere in this vast universe, a planet that is flat.

Your arguments in regards to god are universal claims...you very clearly stated that you are talking about the entire universe, and the fact that it is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a god of some kind does not exist in our universe.

Simply take "god" and substitute any other word, and you've got exactly the same argument:

It is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a giant farting space dragon does not exist in our universe

It is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a human who can live with their head cut off does not exist in our universe

It is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a completely flat planet does not exist in our universe

It is impossible to prove that somewhere, somehow, a insert whatever does not exist in our universe

Does this mean that I'm unreasonable to state that giant farting space dragons don't exist? Or that humans cannot live with their heads cut off? Or that a planet that is completely flat is a physical impossibility?

Or...that god doesn't exist?

I'd say no. Because the alternative -- as I've said time and time and time again -- is to subject oneself to absurdity. I am quite confident in stating -- with absolute certainty -- that there are no giant farting space dragons, or humans who can live with their heads cut off. The lack of proof that these things don't exist does not in any manner, shape, or form render me uncertain, or unwilling to reach such a conclusion. It is, rather, the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever to support those claims, combined with rational evaluation of existing evidence regarding the nature of the universe and how it works that leads me to that conclusion.

Just as it leads me to the conclusion that there is no god.

Sorry, brainfart on my part. I thought you meant universal as "3 a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind)" or a widely accepted belief, as opposed to only one or a handful of people making a claim. I withdraw my statement that they are all universal claims. Also want to add, just for fun, planets that are flat technically exist if you consider asteroids to be minor planets, and some asteroids have flat surfaces. So you're absolutely right I can't prove that there are no flat planets.

What about luminiferous ether as a universal claim? The universal statement, through numerous experiements, was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be false. We know now that light travels through a vaccum and not through a medium. This is consistent throughout the cosmos.

 

[Eric D]

Think about that for a moment. Why would Zeus be more credible in such a situation?

I never said that. I simply said the vast majority might see the christian god as mythology.

 

[Eric D]

I'm as open to the possibillity of Zeus as I am any other god.

You're nit-picking again, pax.