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

[bignickel]

"Theist" means "believer in god/s."

Evidently, some people need "atheist" to mean "denier of god/s."

Not sure why. Possibly has something to do with undercutting the atheist 'position' by re-defining them as 'trying to escape judgement' or 'denying what they know in hearts to be true'.

If it's simply about 'evidence', it's the word-defining theist who starts finding his own position a bit shaky.

 

[Maia]

I understand your issue here but your analogies were still poor. A philosophical controversy would be more like it.

There is no direct evidence the historical Jesus ever existed (see other threads to debate this). There is nothing that really collaborates the New Testament's historical record of Jesus.

Oh, I know, I've been on those merry-go-round threads too! All I can say is, if the historical Jesus is good enough for John Shelby Spong, he's good enough for me. Is the exact point really important, though? Not so much.

So I find arguing about what he did or didn't say or mean is really to argue what the mythical text was intended to mean or not. I find debating the intent of the Bible to be analogous to debating the intent of Greek story tellers when they invented their god stories, or the intent of the Hopi Indian god stories and so on.

I would say that this would be true if large numbers of people in society today (American society in particular) put lots of faith in Greek myth or Hopi stories and made their belief important or sometimes even central to their lives, but they don't. When it comes to the Bible, they do. Because of its impact on human psychology, sociology, politics, and culture in this country, it continues to be a living text, and I think we need to particularly understand its effects on those who read it literally. The argument that it is not literal truth is no philosophical controversy as far as they're concerned, but blatant heresy and more than enough reason to go right to hell.

The Secular Life group in Nashville (HQ of Southern Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Baptist Sunday School Board, and probably a bunch of other Baptists I can't remember because I just worked thirteen hours) is going to put up a nice little billboard on November 1st: this one, and let's just say that I think there are going to be some death threats...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I would say that this would be true if large numbers of people in society today (American society in particular) put lots of faith in Greek myth or Hopi stories and made their belief important or sometimes even central to their lives, but they don't. When it comes to the Bible, they do. Because of its impact on human psychology, sociology, politics, and culture in this country, it continues to be a living text, and I think we need to particularly understand its effects on those who read it literally. The argument that it is not literal truth is no philosophical controversy as far as they're concerned, but blatant heresy and more than enough reason to go right to hell.

By this logic you should be contemplating converting to Islam.

...The Secular Life group in Nashville (HQ of Southern Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Baptist Sunday School Board, and probably a bunch of other Baptists I can't remember because I just worked thirteen hours) is going to put up a nice little billboard on November 1st: this one, and let's just say that I think there are going to be some death threats...

???? So you are saying Christians who don't like having their beliefs challenged are still the group you choose to throw your lot in with?


Or is all this about just being well versed in Christian philosophy and hypocrisy?

 

[H'ethetheth]

"Theist" means "believer in god/s."

Evidently, some people need "atheist" to mean "denier of god/s."

Not sure why. Possibly has something to do with undercutting the atheist 'position' by re-defining them as 'trying to escape judgement' or 'denying what they know in hearts to be true'.

If it's simply about 'evidence', it's the word-defining theist who starts finding his own position a bit shaky.

Some theists do that, yes, but that's not what Malerin was talking about, and not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the significant group of people on this forum who say that they are 100% sure there is no God, and label themselves atheist.
Once every while someone on the forum says something like: "Pah, I've yet to see one of those strawman atheists that are 100% sure there is no god". Soon after that, exactly such a person will pop up and say exactly that, after which a long discussion will ensue.

See here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109149
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5474
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132854
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148664
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141107
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153011
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142708

And I personally don't see why they shouldn't label themselves atheist. I should think everybody who answers the question 'Do you believe in any sort of God' with 'No' is an atheist.

 

[sphenisc]

Agreed, except that with language, opinions matter. For instance, I ordered aspirin once at the drugstore; I got paracetamol. I was surprised and repeated that I wanted aspirin, and the clerk said "Oh Aspirin!".

I didn't know what to say after that...

I think you'll find that paracetamol is without-spirin.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I think you'll find that paracetamol is without-spirin.

 

[bignickel]

Some theists do that, yes, but that's not what Malerin was talking about, and not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the significant group of people on this forum who say that they are 100% sure there is no God, and label themselves atheist.
Once every while someone on the forum says something like: "Pah, I've yet to see one of those strawman atheists that are 100% sure there is no god". Soon after that, exactly such a person will pop up and say exactly that, after which a long discussion will ensue.

Well, that's what I get for jumping from page 1 to page 4, and skipping the intervening pages. I couldn't see much of your post that I have any problem with. I will say that I think most atheists

The only part that I would slightly differ is on the question:
To me, theism is a club. To be in the club, you have to say "yes" to the question: "Do you believe in god/s?" Anyone who can't say or believe 'yes' to that question... is an atheist. Anyone who says "I'm not an atheist; I'm an agnostic" but won't say 'yes' to believing in god/s... is out here with the rest of us.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Well, that's what I get for jumping from page 1 to page 4, and skipping the intervening pages. I couldn't see much of your post that I have any problem with. I will say that I think most atheists

The only part that I would slightly differ is on the question:
To me, theism is a club. To be in the club, you have to say "yes" to the question: "Do you believe in god/s?" Anyone who can't say or believe 'yes' to that question... is an atheist. Anyone who says "I'm not an atheist; I'm an agnostic" but won't say 'yes' to believing in god/s... is out here with the rest of us.

Okay, I admit that agnostics would sort of disappear as a category with my question (other than maybe by answering 'I don't know' or 'perhaps'). But I get from this that you would agree that gnostic atheists exist and are indeed atheists, which was Malerin's point.

 

[bignickel]

Okay, I admit that agnostics would sort of disappear as a category with my question (other than maybe by answering 'I don't know' or 'perhaps'). But I get from this that you would agree that gnostic atheists exist and are indeed atheists, which was Malerin's point.

Oh gosh yes. Everytime I see a thread titled "what would it take for you to believe?", and see a bunch of posters stating "If X happened... then I would believe", there you have a bunch of gnostics. Those types of threads have garnered alot of posts over the years. As for me, I'm just an evolved primate; I wouldn't know god/s if he/she/it/they bit me on the butt. I just don't have that capability. The gnostic theists get around this by saying that our divine souls can recognize the divine (of course, to me, that's putting the carriage before the horse). Not sure where that leaves the gnostic atheist.

My previous sentence somehow got interupted. It should have said "I will say that I think most atheists who post here who say 'there is no god', say that in the same way they would say 'there is no purple 6-legged panther outside my doorstep'. It's a matter of practical denial; if no positive evidence exists, we can rule it out.

 

[Maia]

By this logic you should be contemplating converting to Islam.

Ergh, no. But, I'm planning a project right now to do some Koran study for exactly the same reason. People also need to know much more than they do about the basis of other world religions that have many followers and are growing.

???? So you are saying Christians who don't like having their beliefs challenged are still the group you choose to throw your lot in with?

No.

Or is all this about just being well versed in Christian philosophy and hypocrisy?

Yes, although I'd add more to it than that. I do think that everyone could benefit from knowing just why biblical inerrancy makes so little sense; unfortunately, the people who need to learn the most are exactly the ones who are the least likely to educate themselves even a bit about it. Once you know anything at all, it's really too late to go back and believe in it again, which is why so many believers will cling to ignorance.

The idea that anyone would fight tooth and nail to cling to the idea of inerrancy only begins to really make sense when we realize that any argument called "Christian-based"or "faith-based" will virtually always be justified by scriptural inerrancy. Ken Ham said it best: ideas like creationism really do depend on it 100%. Take away the idea that creationism is supported by the Bible, and there's simply nothing at all left to prop it up.

 

[riptowtan]

Has anyone seen the hitchens vs. wilson collision movie yet?

 

[Hux]

My previous sentence somehow got interupted. It should have said "I will say that I think most atheists who post here who say 'there is no god', say that in the same way they would say 'there is no purple 6-legged panther outside my doorstep'. It's a matter of practical denial; if no positive evidence exists, we can rule it out.

I think we can go further. I think we can say there is enough evidence to support the position that there is no God. The further we delve, the lesser the magic. It is awesome but it is all natural. Whenever a theist makes or upholds a claim about the Universe - and it is then shown to be without any indication of supernature - the theist has to retreat until the 'God of the Gaps' gets His nuts squeezed just that little bit tighter. I dont even think the jury is out on this one.

The catholic church (no I aint picking on them) used to state quite clearly where Heaven was; where Hell was. Now that NASA flies directly through heaven (and guess what?) and can seismically study where Hell is supposed to be, theists are retreating now into allegory and metaphor. Which is NOT what they used to claim. Their insular, mundane and petty little world is shrinking away to zero whilst the rest of us are just beginning to scratch the surface.

 

[~enigma~]

Someone once said scratch an agnostic and you find a christian. It works the other way also. Christians always retreat into the safe haven of the agnostics "unknowable" god. That is why not only is christianity a 'fraud' but agnosticism is a close second.

 

[Mr Clingford]

The catholic church (no I aint picking on them) used to state quite clearly where Heaven was; where Hell was. Now that NASA flies directly through heaven (and guess what?) and can seismically study where Hell is supposed to be, theists are retreating now into allegory and metaphor. Which is NOT what they used to claim. Their insular, mundane and petty little world is shrinking away to zero whilst the rest of us are just beginning to scratch the surface.

Would you point me towards some sources that show this because if it is so, then that was a little silly of them.

On further thought, wasn't the best thinking for centuries, if not millennia, that heaven was above and hell below?

1600 years ago, for example, Augustine argued against taking the first creation story in Genesis literally:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

Reasoning and experience have a strong part to play. I quote the above to show that non-literal interpretations are not modern and therefore to portray Xtianity as desperately moving from literal to allegory is not accurate, as there has been a strong understanding of the non-scientific nature of Bible texts from early on.

 

[Aepervius]

Oh gosh yes. Everytime I see a thread titled "what would it take for you to believe?", and see a bunch of posters stating "If X happened... then I would believe", there you have a bunch of gnostics. [/i]

That is not correct "formally". You can simply be CURRENTLY an agnostic atheist, as in you have no definite knowledge whether a god exists or not, BUT if somebody was b rhingin in an irrefutable evidence god did indeed exists , become a GNOSTIC theist.

That you CAN accept some evidence as proof an entity exists, does not mean you are currently a gnostic.

The most accepted definition of agnosticism is that the truth on the existence of deity is not known. *SOME* people (AFAIK a minority) expand it to unknowable, in which case you would be right, but the major definition is that it is currently unknown.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The most accepted definition of agnosticism is that the truth on the existence of deity is not known. *SOME* people (AFAIK a minority) expand it to unknowable, in which case you would be right, but the major definition is that it is currently unknown.

But why is it unknown? Do we know that fairies and Leprechauns don't exist? I would hope so. Do we know that Zeus is a myth? Why shouldn't I go so far as to say that is a fact?

Why is it so hard to go from all that overwhelming evidence that god belief after god belief is just a belief in a myth to the conclusion there are no gods? Get over it, folks. The argument one cannot prove there are no gods is no more reason to say gods might exist as not being able to 'prove' plate tectonic theory is a reason to say plate tectonics are not a fact.

Evolution is a fact, plate tectonics are facts, gravity is a fact. These facts are not proved. But we don't need to point out every time we mention these things that science deals in theories, math deals in proofs. It is a fact there are no gods. There is no need to concern ourselves with the semantics of scientific certainty.

The scientific process takes care of that uncertainty for us without the need for special mention unless there truly is doubt somewhere. Paradigm shifts are welcome if/when new discoveries require them. But I need not fear evolution theory is wrong and the next medical breakthrough based on evolution theory will be a fantasy. It will be a fact. I need not fear I'm going to float off the planet because gravity is not a fact. And I need not pussyfoot around the elephant in the room just because I'm outnumbered by god believers. We have more than enough evidence to conclude it is a fact there are no gods.

 

[bignickel]

That is not correct "formally". You can simply be CURRENTLY an agnostic atheist, as in you have no definite knowledge whether a god exists or not, BUT if somebody was b rhingin in an irrefutable evidence god did indeed exists , become a GNOSTIC theist.

That you CAN accept some evidence as proof an entity exists, does not mean you are currently a gnostic.

The most accepted definition of agnosticism is that the truth on the existence of deity is not known. *SOME* people (AFAIK a minority) expand it to unknowable, in which case you would be right, but the major definition is that it is currently unknown.

I'd have to disagree. The whole point of 'agnosticism' is a position on knowability. Changing it to 'don't know' just makes it another word for 'atheism', and as such, destroys any usefulness of it as a word. The difference between 'knowing' there is a god and 'believeing' there is a god doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

Now, you're getting on that plane with Victor Lazlo... oh, sorry, wrong movie.

 

[Hux]

I will never understand why my namesake first coined the phrase "Agnostic". It was so out of character for him. He was always definite in everything he did. I can only presume, having read about him quite a lot, that, like most scientists before and since, he worried about sponsorship and funding. Since he almost single handedly brought science to a mass, working class audience he struck me as stronger than coming up with sucha wishy washy expression.

I dont much care how you define atheism. God doesn't exist and you can pick amongst those bones as you will. But Agnosticism? its just nothing really. Special pleading for spooks.