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

[Eric D]

I fixed it for you.
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.

Does that excuse an illogical and irrational post from you?

Because I don't consider the absence of evidence as evidence of absence like you, it means I'm illogical and irrational? Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable.

I have no idea why you're attacking me just because I'm not completely, 100 percent sure there isn't a God.

 

[Eric D]

The question you actually asked was:



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.

Reread the thread? The only thing that was in the thread before I posted was the link, which I read, and "he he'.

 

[Hux]

Because I don't consider the absence of evidence as evidence of absence like you, it means I'm illogical and irrational? Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable.

I have no idea why you're attacking me just because I'm not completely, 100 percent sure there isn't a God.

I don't think he's attacking you. He's saying the jury need not be out any longer. Agnosticism is, in my opinion, unnecessary today. I don't understand why people can be so ambivalent about it nowadays.

 

[firecoins]

Because I don't consider the absence of evidence as evidence of absence like you, it means I'm illogical and irrational? Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable.

I have no idea why you're attacking me just because I'm not completely, 100 percent sure there isn't a God.

Your being attacked because the claim of a Christian Religion is reliant on the Bible being accurate. If it is allogoric, the religion is manmade and hence nonsense.

You may believe is some greater power but it is not a Chrisitian being as it does not exist.

If you make a claim, you must provide evidence. It is not reasonable for someone to make a claim with no evidence and then someone else prove it not true. Christianity is the claim.

 

[Eric D]

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


..."left unexplained" does not equal "anything is possible.

Show me where I said anything is possible.

 

[Hux]

Is there any other circumstances in your life when you have thought that the absence of money in your wallet meant there could be money in your wallet?

 

[paximperium]

I don't think he's attacking you. He's saying the jury need not be out any longer. Agnosticism is, in my opinion, unnecessary today. I don't understand why people can be so ambivalent about it nowadays.

Actually I am kind attacking his position. Most "agnostics" are plainly just apathetic to the question of god. They may be godless apathetic or the occasional cultural Christians. They don't have an opinion because they don't care.

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.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Reread the thread? The only thing that was in the thread before I posted was the link, which I read, and "he he'.

Yes my dear boy, but AFTER that, people explained why trying to equate "no proof of X" with "no proof of not-X" is silly to the point of absurdity. It is those posts to which I directed your attentions.

 

[Hux]

Actually I am kind attacking his position. Most "agnostics" are plainly just apathetic to the question of god. They may be godless apathetic or the occasional cultural Christians. They don't have an opinion because they don't care.

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 agree with that; it just needed someone of your calibre to say so. Thank you.

 

[Epok]

*snip*

I don't consider the absence of evidence as evidence of absence

I think when it comes to the claims of an omnipotent deity a lot of people do see absence of evidence as evidence of absence. The only claims that you can show to be real are ones that have evidence.

 

[paximperium]

"I dispute the claim that science has nothing to say about God and argue that absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence should be there and is not. In the case of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, as I show in God: The Failed Hypothesis, the lack of evidence is sufficient to conclude that he does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt."
-Victor Stenger

 

[Jungle Jim]

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.

Agreed, at least in his youth he was quite the lefty. Regarding the Middle East, Hitchens position on Iraq has more to do with his support of the Kurds than it does with Bush/Cheney doctrine.

 

[Richard Masters]

Actually I am kind attacking his position. Most "agnostics" are plainly just apathetic to the question of god. They may be godless apathetic or the occasional cultural Christians. They don't have an opinion because they don't care.

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.

My position as an agnostic was that I didn't have enough evidence either for or against the popular Christian God. The popularity matters because the alleged evidence for this deity is pervasive, and the arguments for God's existence and their variations are too numerous to examine quickly, regardless of merit.

While the teapot argument is logical, there aren't millions of people making the claim that there is one. That's one major reason why it is reasonable to examine the claim that there is a Christian God.

 

[Marduk]

Show me where I said anything is possible.

here

Because I don't consider the absence of evidence as evidence of absence like you, it means I'm illogical and irrational? Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable.

without evidence either way anything is possible, just not probable. When you are accepting no evidence as meaningful you are clearly saying anything is possible

 

[paximperium]

My position as an agnostic was that I didn't have enough evidence either for or against the popular Christian God. The popularity matters because the alleged evidence for this deity is pervasive, and the arguments for God's existence and their variations are too numerous to examine quickly, regardless of merit.

Which is exactly my position. However, this is the same issue with any popularly claimed unevidence belief.
Ghosts? Homeopathy? Accupuncture? Naturopathy? Yahweh? Aliens in UFOs?

I do not believe any of these claims. Do you? It does not mean you stop examining the claim or evidence, it just means you don't accept any of such claims with the same level of credulity.

While the teapot argument is logical, there aren't millions of people making the claim that there is one. That's one major reason why it is reasonable to examine the claim that there is a Christian God.

Why isn't it the same? What if millions ARE claiming the existence of this magic teapot?

 

[Eric D]

Actually I am kind attacking his position. Most "agnostics" are plainly just apathetic to the question of god. They may be godless apathetic or the occasional cultural Christians. They don't have an opinion because they don't care.

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.

My position is that there is no evidence. If someone were to ask me "Do you believe in God?", my answer would be "There is no reason for me to." If someone were to ask me "Do you believe God doesn't exist?" my answer would be "It certainly seems that way". The accounts in the bible simply could not have occured. There was no great flood, the Earth is not 5,000 years old, and evolution is a fact. There's absolutely no reason for me to believe in God. I simply recognize that I can't disprove it.

You're making it out to be that I'm stuck in the middle between athiesm and religion, which I'm not. And you're proudly attacking me for it. And starting a huge, unwarranted argument which will go no where.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[cisco]

I have no idea why you're attacking me just because I'm not completely, 100 percent sure there isn't a God.

What do you mean by "God"? A deistic creator who has nothing to do with Earthly affairs is the only remotely plausible god, and if he/she/it exists . . . who cares? It's sort of irrelevant.

I am 100% sure that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is a bill of goods sold to gullible fools every day, while the sellers laugh all the way to the bank. 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."


*Because if the YEC's are correct then he's actively involved in planting evidence to make us think he doesn't exist, just to test our faith.

 

[paximperium]

My position is that there is no evidence. If someone were to ask me "Do you believe in God?", my answer would be "There is no reason for me to." If someone were to ask me "Do you believe God doesn't exist?" my answer would be "It certainly seems that way". The accounts in the bible simply could not have occured. There was no great flood, the Earth is not 5,000 years old, and evolution is a fact. There's absolutely no reason for me to believe in God. I simply recognize that I can't disprove it.

You're making it out to be that I'm stuck in the middle between athiesm and religion, which I'm not. And you're proudly attacking me for it.

If that is your position I withdraw my criticism of your position. Welcome brother Atheist.

However, I do not withdraw my criticisms of your strawmen and irrational argument.

 

[Richard Masters]

Which is exactly my position. However, this is the same issue with any popularly claimed unevidence belief.
Ghosts? Homeopathy? Accupuncture? Naturopathy? Yahweh? Aliens in UFOs?

I do not believe any of these claims. Do you? It does not mean you stop examining the claim or evidence, it just means you don't accept any of such claims with the same level of credulity.

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.

Why isn't it the same? What if millions ARE claiming the existence of this magic teapot?

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

 

[paximperium]

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.

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

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

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?

My point is that you are claiming there is come 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.

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.