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

[Beerina]

If the story of Jesus Christ isn't literally true, then Christianity is a fraud that promotes "a positively wicked doctrine," conservative writer Christopher Hitchens told Fox & Friends Monday morning.

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


Hehe

 

[Eric D]

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


Hehe

I don't see the logic behind that. How does he jump to that conclusion? Just because the stories in the bible are impossible when taken literally, it doesn't very well mean there is no God and that he doesn't have a set of morals for us to adhere to.

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? I don't understand how athiests can be so sure there is no God when there's so much about the universe left unexplained. I expect this kind of blind certainty from rabid religious freaks, but not from people who claim to be on the side of science and logic.

For the record, I'm agnostic and doubt very much that God, as described in religious texts, exists.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I don't see the logic behind that. How does he jump to that conclusion? Just because the stories in the bible are impossible when taken literally, it doesn't very well mean there is no God and that he doesn't have a set of morals for us to adhere to.

Reading the article would be a good way to start looking for answers to those questions.

 

[paximperium]

I don't see the logic behind that. How does he jump to that conclusion? Just because the stories in the bible are impossible when taken literally, it doesn't very well mean there is no CHRISTIAN God and that he doesn't have a set of morals for us to adhere to.

I fixed it for you.

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? I don't understand how athiests can be so sure there is no God when there's so much about the universe left unexplained. I expect this kind of blind certainty from rabid religious freaks, but not from people who claim to be on the side of science and logic.

I'm sorry, show me the proof that Zeus does not exist and is currently fighting Zebob the Celestial Troll. Please do. I'm waiting.

For the record, I'm agnostic and doubt very much that God, as described in religious texts, exists.

Does that excuse an illogical and irrational post from you?

 

[Wolfman]

Humorously enough, Hitchins is agreeing with the arguments of a Christian pastor:

"If Jesus didn't come back from the dead, then Christianity is appalling, it's an appalling fraud and delusion and every unbeliever should attack it," Wilson said. "Christianity is not good for the world because it makes people decent and sober and that sort of thing. At the end of the day, if it's not true, if it's not objectively true, then I don't have any more use for it than Christopher does."

And then the very next line:

Hitchens echoed that idea, but made it clear he does actually consider Christianity a fraud.

Now, in regards to the whole "how athiests can be so sure there is no God when there's so much about the universe left unexplained" thing...

..."left unexplained" does not equal "anything is possible". If there were even the remotest legitimacy to this argument, then I'd have to give every nutcase religion out there equal credence. And the whole "you can't prove its not true" argument? I can't prove that supernovas aren't actually caused by farts from galactic space dragons; it doesn't mean I'm going to consider their existence as a reasonable hypothesis.

Not being able to prove something doesn't exist has gotta' be one of the all-time worst arguments for believing in anything...since it is pretty much impossible to prove that almost anything 'doesn't exist'. Prove there's not a ghost haunting my house. Prove that there aren't space aliens talking to me psychically right now. Hell...prove that Bart Simpson doesn't exist somewhere, in some dimension. Can't be done. Doesn't mean I'm gonna' be 'agnostic' about the existence of ghosts, or psychic aliens, or Bart Simpson.

And despite the entire record of human history, throughout which we've had every imaginable kind of religion, and belief in an incredible panoply of gods, I have yet to see even one remotely credible instance of evidence for the existence of a god of any kind.

 

[Wolfman]

If there were even the remotest legitimacy to this argument, then I'd have to give every nutcase religion out there equal credence

Actually, I have to correct myself slightly here...I do, in fact, give equal credence to every religion out there.

They're all wrong.

 

[paximperium]

And despite the entire record of human history, throughout which we've had every imaginable kind of religion, and belief in an incredible panoply of gods, I have yet to see even one remotely credible instance of evidence for the existence of a god of any kind.

Do you believe in the Canaanite Pantheon?

A large number of deities were worshiped by the followers of the Canaanite religion.

• Anat, virgin goddess of war and strife, sister and putative mate of Ba'al Hadad
• Athirat, "walker of the sea", Mother Goddess, wife of El (also known as Elat and Asherah)
• Athtart, better known by her Greek name Astarte, assists Anat in The Myth of Ba'al
• Baalat or Baalit, the wife or female counterpart of Baal (also Belili)
• Ba'al Hadad, storm god, perhaps superseded El as head of the Pantheon
• Baal-Hammon, god of fertility and renewer of all energies in the Phoenician colonies of the Western Mediterranean
• Dagon, god of crop fertility and grain, father of Baal or Hadad
• El Elyon (lit. God Most High) and El; also transliterated as Ilu
• Eshmun, god, or as Baalat Asclepius, goddess, of healing
• Kotharat, goddesses of marriage and pregnancy
• Kothar wa Hasis, the skilled, god of craftsmanship
• Lotan, serpent ally of Yam
• Melqart, king of the city, the underworld and cycle of vegetation in Tyre
• Molech, putative god of fire[4]
• Mot or Mawat, god of death (not worshiped or given offerings)
• Nikkal-wa-Ib, goddess of orchards and fruit
• Qadeshtu, lit. "Holy One", putative goddess of love, modernly thought to be a sacred prostitute, although there is no evidence of sacred prostitution in ancient Canaanite cities
• Resheph god of plague and of healing
• Shalim and Shachar, twin gods of dawn and dusk
• Shamayim, the god of the heavens
• Shapash, also transliterated Shapshu, goddess of the sun; sometimes equated with the Mesopotamian sun god Shemesh[5] whose gender is disputed[6]
• Yahweh or Yah, for a short time, a son of El and brother of Baal, sometimes married to Asherah. Referred to as a cupbearer
• Yam-nahar or Yam, also called Judge Nahar
• Yarikh god of the moon and husband of Nikkal

Notice a few familiar names in the list?

 

[Wolfman]

If you can't provide proof of God or proof of his absence

I've gotta' say more on this...you are equating two entirely different things. Proving something does exist is quite possible (and yet, as I mentioned above, despite tens of thousands of years of religion, I have yet to see any such 'proof' for the existence of god); but proving that something does not exist is a complete impossibility. I might be able to prove, at best, that it doesn't exist in my immediate vicinity. That's it.

That giant farting space dragon I mentioned above? Go ahead...prove it doesn't exist. Prove that, somewhere in this vast universe, there are not giant farting space dragons that we simply haven't seen yet. Such animals would violate known physical laws? Who cares...you can't prove that those same laws work the same everywhere in the universe.

So does this mean that you are now going to hold the existence of giant farting space dragons as a viable possibility? After all...I can't provide proof that they do exist, but you can't provide proof that they don't exist! I apologize for this, but based on your logic, you are now forced from this moment onwards to forever consider the existence of giant farting space dragons as a feasible possibility; this will affect your life in terrible ways, such as the now looming possibility that one of them could come and fart on our sun, causing a supernova that would destroy all life on earth.

For my part, there are laws of physics that, although they cannot yet explain everything about supernovas, explain enough that I consider their cause to be entirely natural, not involving interactions with any giant farting space dragons at all. Tons of evidence for this explanation (even though it "can't explain absolutely everything")...vs. no evidence at all for the giant farting space dragon hypothesis. Thus, I can rest comfortably that, despite my complete inability to prove that the giant farting space dragon does not, in fact, exist...I can still be confident in declaring that such an idea is ludicrous.

Take that last paragraph, and substitute pretty much any supernatural/paranormal claim, vs. scientific observation of our universe and the way it works...and you've pretty much encapsulated the reason why I'm an atheist.

 

[Sunray Breaker]

I don't see the logic behind that. How does he jump to that conclusion? Just because the stories in the bible are impossible when taken literally, it doesn't very well mean there is no God and that he doesn't have a set of morals for us to adhere to.

If God had any sort of set rules for us to adhere to, he wouldn't have allowed so many conflicting religions in the first place. As Christopher Hitchens beautifully stated in one of his debates with a Christian Apologetic:

[Religious belief] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate? I've been to North Korea. It has a dead man as its president, Kim Jong-Il is only head of the party and head of the army. He's not head of the state. That office belongs to his deceased father, Kim Il-Sung. It's a necrocracy, a thanatocracy. It's one short of a trinity I might add. The son is the reincarnation of the father. It is the most revolting and utter and absolute and heartless tyranny the human species has ever evolved. But at least you can die and leave North Korea!

I have to put it to athiests the same way I put it to religous fanatics. "Show me the proof."

How can there be proof of something that doesn't exist? Disprove Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and then we'll be on fair ground here.

If you can't provide proof of God or proof of his absence,

Uh no, if you can't provide proof for God, then the absence of said proof, is (at least the closest) to the proof of his absence.

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

That's the problem. It's not necessarily just "being so sure there is no God". It's simply refusing to acknowledge anything without evidence and that includes God. The tooth fairy is just as likely to exist as God. Can you prove me otherwise?

I expect this kind of blind certainty from rabid religious freaks, but not from people who claim to be on the side of science and logic.

It's not a blind certainty. It's a conclusion based on logic and science that (non-atheists, for lack of a better term) people have a hard time accepting.

For the record, I'm agnostic and doubt very much that God, as described in religious texts, exists.

Then you're closer to an atheist than you think. As an Agnostic you have to say to yourself that God's existance is just as likely, plausible on par and logical as his absence.

But in the face of evidence that shows no traces of such a being, you're still somewhat relying on a faith, that has no evidence to back it. So Agnostics (at least IMHO) are really more like atheists that have doubt their own non-religion.

 

[Merko]

I apologize for this, but based on your logic, you are now forced from this moment onwards to forever consider the existence of giant farting space dragons as a feasible possibility; this will affect your life in terrible ways, such as the now looming possibility that one of them could come and fart on our sun, causing a supernova that would destroy all life on earth.

What is much worse, is that the theist basing her belief on this argument is faced with the following choices:

1. They can arbitrarily choose to consider only some god(s), and not the exact opposite god(s), for no good reason. For example, they may choose to consider a theoretically possible god that requires you to help rapists and punish disobedient children, while arbitrarily ignoring a possible god that requires you to punish rapists and help disobedient children.

2. They can consider all theoretically possible gods equally, and actually try to give them all some thought. But since there is an infinite number of theoretically possible gods, this is not possible and they will be driven crazy.

3. They can consider all theoretically possible gods equally, but spend no time at all considering them. This could be considered a deist approach. At any rate, it removes the possibility of any sort of prayer, any organized religion, or any belief that one or more gods may affect their lives in any given direction.

 

[Wolfman]

What is much worse, is that the theist basing her belief on this argument is faced with the following choices:

1. They can arbitrarily choose to consider only some god(s), and not the exact opposite god(s), for no good reason. For example, they may choose to consider a theoretically possible god that requires you to help rapists and punish disobedient children, while arbitrarily ignoring a possible god that requires you to punish rapists and help disobedient children.

2. They can consider all theoretically possible gods equally, and actually try to give them all some thought. But since there is an infinite number of theoretically possible gods, this is not possible and they will be driven crazy.

3. They can consider all theoretically possible gods equally, but spend no time at all considering them. This could be considered a deist approach. At any rate, it removes the possibility of any sort of prayer, any organized religion, or any belief that one or more gods may affect their lives in any given direction.

All very true...but none of it includes giant farting space dragons.

 

[Marduk]

2. They can consider all theoretically possible gods equally, and actually try to give them all some thought. But since there is an infinite number of theoretically possible gods, this is not possible and they will be driven crazy.

Main Entry: pan·the·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈpan(t)-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from English pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god
Date: 1732
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

we do very well with it thanks, I haven't smoked any bananas for a while now

 

[†= Crap!]

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/hitchens-christianity-fraud/

"conservative writer Christopher Hitchens"

This is what I find odd. Sorry but there nothing "conservitive" about Hitchens. Left news sources seem do this alot. Although he does promote a sort of "neocon" foreign policy, that doesn't make him a conservative.

Pat Buchanan is extremely anti-mid-east-war, does that make him a liberal to The Raw Story?

 

[Hux]

Hitchens is, once again, eloquent and correct. If Jesus did not raise from the dead then Christians have been ripped off and had the piss taken for centuries.

Everything we have learned, observationally and empirically, has shown us entirely naturalistic explanation for everything we have pondered thus far. There has been not the slightest indication that the observed laws of physics have ever been suspended or tinkered with at any time. Therefore, from every experience and observation we can make, or have made, we can be confident that supernatural acts, entitites or episodes, do not exist. There is no good reason to suppose any non existent God intervened in the affairs of first century Jews.

Therefore, in my opinion, there is no need for agnosticism (who are a bunch of pussies ) and that atheism is the default position. But, to return to the original premise, of course Christianity is fraudulent; all major religions are. Christianity (just as all the rest) requires someone to commit the fraud and some poor schmucks to fall for the scam.

I often think Christians are like those who have been suckered out of massive amounts of money but, won't admit it in the fear of appearing silly.

 

[Mr Clingford]

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.

 

[aviolet4u]

The answer that spiritualists give you is- its all based on personal experience. I haven't had any spiritual experiences at all. I have visited a spiritual forum with over 10,000 members. There are some that swear they communicate with their dead relatives, O.B.E at will, speak to angels, on and on. They have told me to try to meditate and find out for myself what is real and whats not. Haven't gotten around to it but I always get the feeling that I won't be able to decipher if its just my mind thats playing tricks on me...what if its an alien that is just pretending to be my guardian angel How would I know? That's why I'm the biggest cynic out there

 

[m_huber]

I've gotta' say more on this...you are equating two entirely different things. Proving something does exist is quite possible (and yet, as I mentioned above, despite tens of thousands of years of religion, I have yet to see any such 'proof' for the existence of god); but proving that something does not exist is a complete impossibility. I might be able to prove, at best, that it doesn't exist in my immediate vicinity. That's it.

While it is not possible to prove that there is no teacup on Mars, it is entirely possible to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there is no teacup on my desk. This is something I have always had a problem with with the argument of "You can't prove god doesn't exist." IF god is omnipresent and has any effect on our physical universe, then all I have to do to show that that particular god doesn't exist is to find any place where that god does not have any effect. Sure, there could be a "god" on Omnicron Theta, but if it can't effect anything on earth, why bother calling it a god?

The argument of "you can't disprove god" makes sense if you're a deist, but especially for christians, it is incorrect. The Bible makes very specific claims about the nature of god, and those claims are entirely testable. And they have been tested.

 

[Eric D]

Reading the article would be a good way to start looking for answers to those questions.

Yes I'm sure all the answers are in that article, but I must have missed it. Exactly where does he disprove God in that article?

 

[paximperium]

Yes I'm sure all the answers are in that article, but I must have missed it. Exactly where does he disprove God in that article?

Exactly where in reality does he need to do so?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yes I'm sure all the answers are in that article, but I must have missed it. Exactly where does he disprove God in that article?

The question you actually asked was:

How does he jump to that conclusion?

The conclusion being the title of this thread.

Plus, you should reread the thread until the points explaining the difference between claiming something does exist and claiming something does not exist sink in to the extent that you don't ask silly questions like your new one anymore.