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

[H'ethetheth]

No, i am describing what the word means.

Not according to Malerin's own made up definition.

Not according to quite a few posters on this forum either. Every once in a while there's another discussion about the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism, and not every atheist here is of the agnostic persuasion.

 

[~enigma~]

Not according to quite a few posters on this forum either. Every once in a while there's another discussion about the difference between gnostic and agnostic atheism, and not every atheist here is of the agnostic persuasion.

Don't matter what other posters claim. The fact remains that a is a prefix that means without so an atheist is without theism. Theism is a belief in a god. Atheist is without belief in a god. There is no argument as to what the word means. There are however individual beliefs as to the way it is interpreted but we all know what they say about opinions.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Don't matter what other posters claim. The fact remains that a is a prefix that means without so an atheist is without theism. Theism is a belief in a god. Atheist is without belief in a god. There is no argument as to what the word means. There are however individual beliefs as to the way it is interpreted but we all know what they say about opinions.

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...

 

[~enigma~]

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...

Still doesn't change the meaning of the word.

 

[Mr Clingford]

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.

No, I think that it is core to Xtianity, but not given a lot of airplay by some because it is not an easy message.

Also, there is not agreement in Xtianity as to what and how the death/Res of Jesus symbolises, how it might work/what it means.

Believing that one is forgiven by God does not remove the responsibility of one's actions and their consequences.

 

[paximperium]

You're nit-picking again, pax.

I don't believe you know what nit-picking means.
Any god you say? Are you sure about that?

You consider that Zeus; god of the Greek Pantheon who was formed by the Titan Cronus and Rhea; who fathered Heracles and raped a woman as a swan to be as plausible as Yahweh, the Cannaanite Sky god..oops; the well known Jewish tyrant god...uh I mean Christian wishy-washy love god or even Fei-Lian, the Wind Dragon who stirs up typhoons?

They are all the same?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Still doesn't change the meaning of the word.

Actually, that's exactly what it does. Aspirin literally means paracetamol to a lot of people, just like manufacturing doesn't necessarily happen by hand anymore, and just like to a large group of people, atheism means the categorical denial of any Devine existence.

But, that said, I'd like to end this derail here.

 

[paximperium]

Actually, that's exactly what it does. Aspirin literally means paracetamol to a lot of people, just like manufacturing doesn't necessarily happen by hand anymore, and just like to a large group of people, atheism means the categorical denial of any Devine existence.

But, that said, I'd like to end this derail here.

Pssst...paracetamol is acetaminophen/tylenol. Not aspirin.
But you can call aspirin whatever you want, Bayer, Wal-Mart Aspirin etc. but it is still Acetyl-Salicylic Acid.

 

[Wolfman]

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.

Okay...we're working from equal definitions now

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.

Yup, this would be a universal claim. And we can prove that, at least in our region of the universe, based on the properties that we've observed, that light doesn't need a medium to travel through. However, while we can safely assume that this is the case throughout the universe, we cannot prove it...unless we are able to observe the properties of light throughout the entire universe at this present moment in time.

Some examples: the light that we observe from distant galaxies is thousands, millions, and even billions of years old. We can make basic observations about that light, and the places it came from...but that information is in fact outdated by up to billions of years. Can you prove to me that the laws of physics have not changed in those regions since then, and that light now requires a medium to travel through? Or can you prove to me that there are not regions of space that we have not observed where the fundamental laws of physics differ, and light requires luminiferous ether?

Your arguments are now drawing closer to my own...despite the fact that you are entirely unable to prove that luminiferous ether does not exist somewhere in the universe, you feel safe -- based on your understanding of how the universe works in our own local region -- in reaching the conclusion that luminiferous ether does not, in fact, exist anywhere in the universe, and that no matter what part of the universe we are talking about, light does not require a medium through which to travel.

 

[Malerin]

Right, the term "strong atheism" is entirely my own invention

"Strong atheism is a term popularly used to describe atheists who claim the statement "There is at least one god" is false. Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

 

[Maia]

OK, here's why. (Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis's reasoning)

If a mortal man (like you or me) offered to forgive you and absolve you for all of your sins against third parties if only believe in him and pray to him for forgiveness, it would be very presumptuous and ridiculous.

I mean, think about it: If I offered to accept a punishment on behalf of a murderer and thereby forgive him of all his sins if only he believes that I am God, wouldn't that be a very presumptuous and ridiculous thing if it happens to be that I am not God?

Even at the time he continued to popularize"Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" silliness (as specifically tackled in his radio addresses and then published in Mere Christianity), C.S.Lewis had access to the late nineteenth century Biblical scholarship necessary to know better than this. (A good example is Bruno_Bauer, (1809-1882), whose life and career were completely ruined because of his unorthodox and pioneering higher criticism of the Bible, particularly the gospels.) The fact that Jesus didn't actually claim to be God wasn't invented in 1963 by John A.T. Robinson (although his career was in tatters, relatively speaking, after publishing it in Honest to God, a full century after Bauer.) Because of modern scholarship, however, one thing which definitely can now be stated is that the historical Jesus never said any such thing (and theologians can finally research facts like these without worrying about ruining their lives.) So actually, this is very much on topic, because Lewis was a fraud. He chose the easy and lazy way out, spoon-feeding pap to the masses instead of taking the courageous path. Although it seems almost impossible to believe, saying that Jesus never even claimed to be divine still would have been that path in 1941-1944, which is when the original radio addresses were given that later became Mere Christianity.

ETA: BTW, it would be interesting to have a discussion about non-theism on this thread.

 

[Mr Clingford]

... Because of modern scholarship, however, one thing which definitely can now be stated is that the historical Jesus never said any such thing. So actually, this is very much on topic, because Lewis was a fraud.

I would be very interested to read about this as I am under the impression that what you say is not actually the case - what are your sources? Surely this argument is unresolved with some saying some passages are interpolations and some saying no they are original?

 

[paximperium]

Right, the term "strong atheism" is entirely my own invention

"Strong atheism is a term popularly used to describe atheists who claim the statement "There is at least one god" is false. Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

No. Your assertion that "strong atheism" is synomynous with the original definition of atheism is false and henceforth your own little construct.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Pssst...paracetamol is acetaminophen/tylenol. Not aspirin.

I know, that was precisely the point.

ETA: After rereading my drug store story, I can see where the confusion arises. The point is that people here in the Netherlands use the word 'aspirin' to mean 'little white pain killer pill', and that includes drug store clerks, apparently.

 

[Maia]

I would be very interested to read about this as I am under the impression that what you say is not actually the case - what are your sources? Surely this argument is unresolved with some saying some passages are interpolations and some saying no they are original?

The era of higher Biblical criticism is usually thought to have begun with Jean Astruc (1684-1766), so it can certainly be said that it's nothing new. There's such a long list of scholars that I'm definitely not going to reprint them all, but David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) is another early pioneer; in his Life of Jesus (1835-36), he denied miracles, the integrity of the New Testiment, and the deity of Christ. Julius Wellhausen's (1878) Prolegomena was where we got the JEPD code (J is the Jehova source, E is Elohim, P is priestly documents, and D represents the later editorial work of the Deutoronomist or Deuteronomic school). This is why C.S. Lewis should at least have known better than to present the argument in the way that he did and to speak dismissively of higher biblical criticism (which he did do.) He knew that at the time, it could be said at absolute minimum that a lot of controversy existed, and he pretended that it didn't. Here's an excellent source on the earlier scholars:
a good page.

Rudolf Bultmann, Neville Clark, Raymond Brown, Charles Dodd (not the one you'll find in Wikipedia), and John A.T. Robinson did very important work in the mid-twentieth century. Here's a page about higher criticism as a whole: I know, I don't like Wikipedia, but sometimes you just have to use it.

Here we have a good essay on different types of Biblical criticism:really pretty good.


As for modern biblical scholars, we have John Shelby Spong, Bart Ehrman, Paul Tillich, Robert Funk, Roy Hoover, Karen Armstrong, John Dominic Crossan, Robert Miller, Marcus Borg...

I think we all know where this is going. The "controversy" about whether or not the historical Jesus actually said he was the son of God is pretty much the same controversy that exists between teaching evolutionism and creationism, except for the fact that most people don't know enough about it to realize this. It's certainly possible to find other scholars who will say that the argument is unresolved (the Tektonics page is certainly one place to start), but I don't see that they have a leg to stand on. The real problem with questioning biblical inerrancy (which is finally what this boils down to, IMHO) is that it finally leads to the conclusion that (per JSS's wiki page) "theism has lost credibility as a valid conception of God's nature." This is not where a lot of Christians want to go.

 

[Beerina]

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.

The religion is self-referential in the veracity of the Bible. Every time something comes up that shows this or that story could not have happened, it switches from being literal to, ummm, always having been something that is merely allegory.

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?

It is the claimant's job to provide the proof. People claim God exists (and, furthermore, that the Bible is the uncorrupted Word of God, literal interpretations aside). It is their job to prove this. "That people have believed for thousands of years" does not somehow shift the burden to the atheist.

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

The religious have a huge bag of "unknowns" that are "from God". Scientists have been pulling things out of the bag on a regular basis for hundreds of years now, and it's only accelerating.

An honest religious person would take no solace in the certainty that anything still in the bag will remain so.

At best, they're right, but purely coincidentally, given the lack of a rigorous definition of what should be in the bag.

As rhetoric, it's good, I suppose. As both science, and evidence of honesty, to say nothing of critical thinking, it's a complete loser.

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.

Any evidence for God? All we are saying is "prove it."

 

[Beerina]

Do you believe in the Canaanite Pantheon?
Notice a few familiar names in the list?

This is why the Canaanites had to be killed. How dare Satan get away with this bastardazied lie that makes it look like Judaism evolved from a previous religion*!











* I thought this was a modern idea, but I was shocked to read a quote from some guy about the 4th century who noted such documents existed, and they must therefore be plants by Satan or somesuch. I've been trying unsuccessfully for several years to find it again. Anyone?

 

[tsig]

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.

Written proof of dragons existing in space:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_Rat_and_Dragon

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Most Theist I personally know, if not all, learned about "gods" when they were young, then never really gave a thought about anybody else belief or even their own. They probably don't give a toss. I sometimes get the feeling that the huge part of the population simply do not care, say they believe in god, but really pray or act ont heir belief in case of accident/mariage or stuff like that, but not in their daily live.

 

[Maia]

An honest religious person would take no solace in the certainty that anything still in the bag will remain so.

Yup. As I said...

The real problem with questioning biblical inerrancy (which is finally what this boils down to, IMHO) is that it finally leads to the conclusion that (per JSS's wiki page) "theism has lost credibility as a valid conception of God's nature." This is not where a lot of Christians want to go.