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

[Puppycow]

Famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis also said essentially the same thing (that Jesus cannot be viewed as merely a great moral teacher who was merely human). Either it's literally true or it's ridiculous.

 

[Eric D]

I don't believe in any of these claims either, even though they are quite popular, but there is a distinction: Homeopathy, Acupuncture, and Naturopathy are relatively new claims that are easy to discredit, so they would not deserve as much attention as God's existence or Ghosts and Aliens in UFOs.

The other major difference between the remaining claims you listed and God's Existence is the stakes. This isn't the same as Pascal's wager, in that it's simply more reasonable to be concerned about eternal damnation than whether the house across the street is haunted or visited by aliens.



It's simply that the existence of a magic teapot is inconsequential, so it's impractical to worry about it.

I would say the main difference between the belief in god and other woo claims is that religious doctrines can be seen as metaphor. If you claim to see an alien space craft, you're saying you literally saw a flying machine built and occupied by extraterrestrials. Things like "burning in a lake of fire" could actually just mean you're suffering, in whatever way. If someone was to say "I'm up to my ass in bills" it doesn't literally mean they are wading ass-deep in paper bills, but it also doesn't mean what they are saying is fraudulent.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I would say the main difference between the belief in god and other woo claims is that religious doctrines can be seen as metaphor. If you claim to see an alien space craft, you're saying you literally saw a flying machine built and occupied by extraterrestrials. Things like "burning in a lake of fire" could actually just mean you're suffering, in whatever way. If someone was to say "I'm up to my ass in bills" it doesn't literally mean they are wading ass-deep in paper bills, but it also doesn't mean what they are saying is fraudulent.

Hans took care of that argument fairly well in another thread.

But to tackle the other problem too: yes, I know that about half the Christians are Catholics and those have the blanket excuse that they're non-literalists. Except too often that's just an excuse to not have any goalposts at all, much less fixed ones. For most non-priest Catholics you'd be hard pressed to get more than a "yeah, but we're not taking that literally" about most of the Bible. They can't even say what _does_ it mean according to their doctrine.

And when you do get an "it's a metaphor for X", it actually leaves me stumped as to exactly why would god say "black" when apparently it's a metaphor for "white."

E.g., to take Genesis as an example again, but from that angle, I'm told basically that it's one big metaphor for the accretion of Earth, for evolution, etc. And even that when God gives Eve birth pains as punishment for having learned good an evil, what he really means is: a brain big enough for sentience will mean a big head on the baby and it'll hurt like a sonofawitch when it comes out.

But the problem still is that that metaphor gets so many basic things wrong (e.g., birds before reptiles, or advanced trees with seed before a visible sun), that it's really not a metaphor at all. A God who actually knows how that stuff happened, and made it all with his own two hands (ok, ok, with the Logos), can put it oversimplified or use metaphoric language, but has no excuse to get the order wrong or basically to describe something hideously unrelated. There's only so much you can stretch a metaphor before it ceases to be a metaphor entirely.

Basically I'd still want to see _some_ stuff in that Bible that supports those leaps of faith to what it really means. Just going "we're not literalists" only cuts it so far.

Well, unless they want to tell me that God was just taking the piss all along. Fair enough. As a bit of a class clown myself, it would be a bit hypocritical of me to ask God to stay serious

 

[Eric D]

Famous Christian apologist C.S. Lewis also said essentially the same thing (that Jesus cannot be viewed as merely a great moral teacher who was merely human). Either it's literally true or it's ridiculous.

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.

 

[paximperium]

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.

41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? 42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. 45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
-Luke 12

 

[paximperium]

I'm never totally sure where I peg myself on the agnostic-atheist scale. I guess closer to atheist, on the grounds no religion seems to be able to offer credible evidence for their god. But really, I just hate being labelled.

You can label yourself whatever you want. I understand why a multitude of folk dislike the Atheist label, it carries a significant social stigma and historical baggage.

What no one can do it redefine the original meaning of a word just because they don't like the word. I am technically an Agnostic Atheist but universally call myself Atheist since I don't believe this label is anything to be ashamed of. What I detest are some people, especially a certain type of people who label themselves "agnostic", who belittle those who where the atheist label. It is the same bigotry atheist receive from theist.

 

[Richard Masters]

Well it actually is a kind of Pascal's Wager-lite. See below.

What if a whole bunch believes it is really important? Say, if the teapot rotates to the right an Earthquake will destroy a major city in the world?

If the teapot's misalignment could generate earthquakes AND this information came from historic manuscripts or something akin to the all-time best-selling book in the world, then the teapot would deserve more attention.

My point is that you are claiming there is some consequence or stakes when it has never been shown there is one to begin with. It seems as if you have already attached some meaning or consequence to an unproven idea based on preconceived social ideas.

To some extent my social or cultural upbringing makes examining the Christian God more important. Had I grown up in India, examining Hinduism would be more relevant to me; assuming that were the case and I rejected Hinduism, some of the same patterns would be relevant to Christianity, and rejecting Hinduism would probably lead to rejecting Christianity.

My cultural upbringing probably does have a lot of weight in terms of determining which supernatural claim to examine first. So I agree with you in that regard.

What if I said that if you don't kill a baby with a chainsaw to Zebob the Celestial Troll, the world will burn?

There is a major concern/stake only IF it was true.

If you had very popular and historical documents that allege the above that might be a compelling claim, simply because more (consistent) evidence raises the Bayesian probability that it is true.

 

[paximperium]

If the teapot's misalignment could generate earthquakes AND this information came from historic manuscripts or something akin to the all-time best-selling book in the world, then the teapot would deserve more attention.

See below

To some extent my social or cultural upbringing makes examining the Christian God more important. Had I grown up in India, examining Hinduism would be more relevant to me; assuming that were the case and I rejected Hinduism, some of the same patterns would be relevant to Christianity, and rejecting Hinduism would probably lead to rejecting Christianity.

My cultural upbringing probably does have a lot of weight in terms of determining which supernatural claim to examine first. So I agree with you in that regard.

As long as you are aware, that is an intellectually honest position to take.

If you had very popular and historical documents that allege the above that might be a compelling claim, simply because more (credible?) evidence raises the Bayesian probability that it is true.

What if you do not have a popular document?--Argument from Popularity
What about a "historical" document that is contradicted by itself, a multitude of other historical documents and archeology?--Argument from Antiquity

 

[quixotecoyote]

No, because I never said I didn't understand it or that it wasn't true. I said I skimmed it. I saw "farting space dragon". I'm not going to bother with it unless you sum it up and leave out the insults.

See that's funny.

I read

Some long-winded diatribe about how if I don't disbelieve god, I also have to give the same credence to farting dragons?

And it sounds like you're disagreeing with that.

Now you're saying that you never said it was wrong.

So are you saying you now agree with it, or are you going to support the position that some things with 0 evidence should be given a greater credence than other things with 0 evidence?

 

[~enigma~]

I don't understand how athiests can be so sure there is no God when there's so much about the universe left unexplained.

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?

 

[Sledge]

I think my willingness or otherwise to label myself depends on the situation. If someone starts talking religion and I want an easy out, I'll happily say "Atheist, not interested." If I want an actual discussion, I'll keep that card back and let the discussion go on. So what do I mean overall? I'm not entirely sure.

I think the problem with the term agnostic is it's been appropriated by people who are very lazy. They've put no thought into the matter, just gone "dunno" and shrugged. Annoyingly, they then get grouped with people who've spent a lot of time on the question and come to a conclusion based on the available information that there's no answer.

 

[Eric D]

See that's funny.

I read



And it sounds like you're disagreeing with that.

Now you're saying that you never said it was wrong.

So are you saying you now agree with it, or are you going to support the position that some things with 0 evidence should be given a greater credence than other things with 0 evidence?

There is also zero evidence for extraterrestrial life on distance planets. Does it mean it can also be equated to a farting space dragon?

 

[Marduk]

There is also zero evidence for extraterrestrial life on distance planets. Does it mean it can also be equated to a farting space dragon?

evidentially yes, probably no,
are you about to claim that in an infinite universe the chances of farting space dragons exist are zero ?
what if the aliens are actually farting space dragons ?

 

[quixotecoyote]

There is also zero evidence for extraterrestrial life on distance planets. Does it mean it can also be equated to a farting space dragon?

Really no evidence? None at all? Not even a growing understanding of the conditions under which life began on Earth and a growing understanding of the conditions and history of distant planets? Not even that? Really? Are you sure?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have to put it to athiests the same way I put it to religous fanatics. "Show me the proof." If you can't provide proof of God or proof of his absence, then who's to say anything about his existence at all?

If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi

 

[Richard Masters]

See below
As long as you are aware, that is an intellectually honest position to take.
What if you do not have a popular document?--Argument from Popularity
What about a "historical" document that is contradicted by itself, a multitude of other historical documents and archeology?--Argument from Antiquity

The popular or historical documents are important as evidence. Evidence in any other form would be adequate if it is consistent with the presented claims.

 

[~enigma~]

absence of evidence

You do understand that absence of evidence means exactly that, an absence of evidence.

 

[paximperium]

The popular or historical documents are important as evidence.

I agree. The problem when it comes to Christianity is the lack of historical documents leading the original claimed events.

Evidence in any other form would be adequate if it is consistent with the presented claims.

Agreed but that is the problem isn't it? The evidence is not consistent to the presented claims.

 

[Eric D]

You do understand that absence of evidence means exactly that, an absence of evidence.

Yes. I've been saying the whole time there is no evidence. There is no evidence God exists. I don't believe in God. Can you guys just stop nit-picking my statements to find something wrong with them?

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

I mean no one's perfect...except you know who....

 

[~enigma~]

No, make that 99.999999999%*, and if the 0.000000001% is right then he's total ******* anyway and I'd rather go to hell than be anywhere near the jerk in "heaven."

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.