christopher hitchens

[PingviN]

Why not?

Because it's not a circular argument. Having an eye (or any other organ) in several different stages is evidence that it isn't an either-or situation. And that is evidence of evolution.

1. You need religion to be good people.

2. Everybody is an atheist when it comes to other gods, like Zeus or Thor.

3. Religious people do bad things.

4. Says there are good explanations for the origin of life that don't include a "prime mover".

1. People have made the "morals come from religion"-argument countless times.

2. The point is that if you don't believe in all the other Gods - despite them having the same level of evidence supporting their existence - you have no real reason to believe in yours.

3. It has a lot of belief in God. Granted that you don't have to have faith in a god to do evil, a lot of evil is committed in the name of God. Remove the God-argument and there would be one fewer reasons for people to do evil.

4. Of all the explanations, creationism is probably one of the worst. There are plenty of better ones, even though we don't know for certain.

"Good" =! "The best"

 

[buckshot24]

Not sure what you're getting at. I don't see how the gradual change of something that exist in the past to something that exist in the present would represent circular argument.

That isn't even an argument let alone circular.

 

[Ricochet]

That isn't even an argument let alone circular.

We agree then.

 

[buckshot24]

Because it's not a circular argument. Having an eye (or any other organ) in several different stages is evidence that it isn't an either-or situation. And that is evidence of evolution.

But you don't know these are different stages.

1. People have made the "morals come from religion"-argument countless times.

I've not seen that and I certainly wouldn't make that argument. Do you have any citations?

2. The point is that if you don't believe in all the other Gods - despite them having the same level of evidence supporting their existence - you have no real reason to believe in yours.

The point is lost since it is nonsensical to call somebody an atheist who believes in God.

3. It has a lot of belief in God. Granted that you don't have to have faith in a god to do evil, a lot of evil is committed in the name of God. Remove the God-argument and there would be one fewer reasons for people to do evil.

People are evil and can and do use whatever justification to do evil. This has nothing to do with the existence of God. Zip.

4. Of all the explanations, creationism is probably one of the worst. There are plenty of better ones, even though we don't know for certain.

His statement was and is completely wrong. "Science" has no valid explanations, Hitch was wrong.

"Good" =! "The best"

Good =| whatever hopeful conjecture we can come up with.

 

[buckshot24]

We agree then.

Your post didn't address the point.

 

[Moonbeam]

Suppose we thought of God as a something or other from which we draw a sense that life itself is good and should be respected by all people for all people. Such a God would be a God that even people who do not use the word God can believe in, Atheists and Buddhists or pagans, for example. If people thought of God in this way, for example, we could ask different questions, not say, how can the evil god you believe in possibly exist, but rather would what you believe in, if others believed in it too but only freely and without coercion or the propagandizing of children, result in the wish for the good for all people.

It seems to me that what is at stake in the argument between Atheists and Believers is the nature of what is good, not whether or not God exists, because the feeling there is and must be a good out there somewhere that we strive for is a certainty we all seem to share, those of us who have a capacity for empathy, at least. It is an open question, I think, that folk like serial killers may not have been born fully human.

The issue I have with the debate between the faithful and the non-religious is that each side seems determined to undermine the others faith that life is sacred or good, an effort that will never succeed because life IS good. Moral religious people and non-believers have more in common with each other than they do with people who are truly evil, whether that evil arises out of the self hate of a religious fanatic or an anti-god psychopath.

And even a snail like the Catholic Church is evolving. The more we see that all life matters the better we become. Blessed are those who love life for their lives will be full of love.

 

[PingviN]

But you don't know these are different stages.

If your claim is that eyes only exist in one state and one state alone, then you'll need to prove that.

I've not seen that and I certainly wouldn't make that argument. Do you have any citations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWt8a1aMkZ4

Two seconds of Google:ing.

The point is lost since it is nonsensical to call somebody an atheist who believes in God.

You're missing the point, obviously.

People are evil and can and do use whatever justification to do evil. This has nothing to do with the existence of God. Zip.

Point, again, missed. Read what I write.

His statement was and is completely wrong. "Science" has no valid explanations, Hitch was wrong.

Define "valid explanation", please. I've already told you we have GOOD explanations. There isn't one single SCIENTIFIC THEORY which has been PROVEN, but that's not needed for something to be a good explanation either. That'd be required for the truth.

Science isn't magic. It's long, arduous work where inserting God into the gaps doesn't fly. We're figuring out more and more previous mysteries, and we'll figure out the origin of life and the reason for our universe's existence too, but it'll take time.

Good =| whatever hopeful conjecture we can come up with.

I suppose someone with very little intellect and understanding of scientific methods would assume something like that. Whilst not laughing his ass off about creationistic ideas.

 

[woolfe9998]

Hey guys look, a creationist is telling people that they aren't good at evaluating arguments.

If you want to fuck up one thread by having it filled with people trying to explain grade school biology to you that's one thing, but keep it in there. I know it's not your fault that you weren't taught better to begin with, but it IS your fault that you won't learn now.

Yeah, and isn't this the same guy who in 2012 argued incessantly that polling was biased against Romney and Romney would win? Sure, he's the best person to tell others how good they are at "evaluating arguments."

 

[kage69]

A demolition by Christopher Hitchens? Well, here he is givin' a Rabbi a going over for him seeing genital mutilation as a triviality. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ov2NiNo4

That's a good one, here's another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ek4v0dLsA

Since I'm here...

Al Sharpton learns this ain't fun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPYxA8dYLBY

Douglas Wilson given the red headed step child treatment in front of the Westminister Seminary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6UU9C-WmvM

William Lane Craig getting his dishonest ass stomped by Hitchens at Biola University https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU

Ugh, there's just so many classics!

If you want to know exactly what Hitchens thought regarding Iraq/Saddam, the clip of the Galloway debate at Baruch College is what you want https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNxkK7elSZ4

 

[buckshot24]

If your claim is that eyes only exist in one state and one state alone, then you'll need to prove that.

So your position is that I need to prove that eyes aren't in different stages of evolution? That is abject hackery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWt8a1aMkZ4

Two seconds of Google:ing.

You should have kept looking. Sharpton isn't exactly an authority or well respected AND the title of the video is "Can Morality Exist Without God?"

You're missing the point, obviously.

Atheists aren't people who believe in God, period.

Point, again, missed. Read what I write.

I did and it doesn't contradict anything I wrote. People are capable of using any reason to do evil but that doesn't mean God ordained any of it. Evil people will use any justification to do evil.

Define "valid explanation", please. I've already told you we have GOOD explanations.

No you don't. They are wishful thinking conjectures. You find a process that makes a few racemic amino acids and claim this is a "good" explanation.

There isn't one single SCIENTIFIC THEORY which has been PROVEN, but that's not needed for something to be a good explanation either. That'd be required for the truth.

It's all crap.

Science isn't magic. It's long, arduous work where inserting God into the gaps doesn't fly. We're figuring out more and more previous mysteries, and we'll figure out the origin of life and the reason for our universe's existence too, but it'll take time.

Forget the "gaps", there is no good or even semi plausible explanation for the origin of life and that won't change any time soon (ever).

I suppose someone with very little intellect and understanding of scientific methods would assume something like that. Whilst not laughing his ass off about creationistic ideas.

I'm not the issue here.

 

[buckshot24]

That's a good one, here's another. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ek4v0dLsA

Since I'm here...

Al Sharpton learns this ain't fun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPYxA8dYLBY

Douglas Wilson given the red headed step child treatment in front of the Westminister Seminary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6UU9C-WmvM

William Lane Craig getting his dishonest ass stomped by Hitchens at Biola University https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MzPmkNsgU

Ugh, there's just so many classics!

If you want to know exactly what Hitchens thought regarding Iraq/Saddam, the clip of the Galloway debate at Baruch College is what you want https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNxkK7elSZ4

Give examples of the "demolitions" from each of those debates. Your descriptions aren't convincing, I watched the WLC debate and don't remember any "demolitions" Hitch laid down. I recall it being the exact opposite.

 

[PingviN]

Ugh, I don't even want to waste my nothing-better-to-do-time on you.

 

[buckshot24]

Ugh, I don't even want to waste my nothing-better-to-do-time on you.

I'd jump out as well if I had to defend your assertion that we have "good explanations" about the origin of life.

 

[PingviN]

I'd jump out as well if I had to defend your assertion that we have "good explanations" about the origin of life.

Kinda pointless arguing with someone who just disregards whatever you've just written and argues against something else entirely.

You've still not grasped the difference between a good explanation, a bad explanation and scientific truth. And that shit is pretty basic.

 

[kage69]

*snip*

I recall it being the exact opposite.

Wow, real news there!

Look, I didn't reply to you for a reason. The opinion of a sad little ideologue simply doesn't interest me. I didn't just decide to label you that either, you've earned it with posts champ.

So, kindly piss off. Troll someone else.

 

[kage69]

Maaaan, it's been awhile since I watched the Galloway debate! Forgot how abrasive and scrapy it got! You do have to listen to Galloway drone on trying to sound very loud and very epic at times, but it's worth it.

Some of the personal jabs were just too good, you just don't see person-to-person oratorical combat like that much these days.

 

[buckshot24]

Wow, real news there!

Look, I didn't reply to you for a reason. The opinion of a sad little ideologue simply doesn't interest me. I didn't just decide to label you that either, you've earned it with posts champ.

So, kindly piss off. Troll someone else.

I see, I will defend my opinions with examples and willing to argue for my reasoning and I'm a "sad little ideologue" while you blindly assert and won't defend anything. Makes sense. I'll do you the favor and add you to the list so I don't reply to any more of your blind assertions.

 

[buckshot24]

Kinda pointless arguing with someone who just disregards whatever you've just written and argues against something else entirely.

You've still not grasped the difference between a good explanation, a bad explanation and scientific truth. And that shit is pretty basic.

Whatever makes you feel better.

 

[Darwin333]

Contempt? Wow. I don't believe unobservable fantasies about the power mutation and I deserve contempt? I think I'll place you back on the list with that.

Yet you do believe in unobservable fantasies about magic cloud fairies who evidently sprinkled life on earth over billions of years, starting with the most basic of life, the more complex life, then let reptiles rule the world for far longer than man, then created different species of man and finally let those species of man have a grudge match with us being the victors.

 

[buckshot24]

Yet you do believe in unobservable fantasies about magic cloud fairies who evidently sprinkled life on earth over billions of years, starting with the most basic of life, the more complex life, then let reptiles rule the world for far longer than man, then created different species of man and finally let those species of man have a grudge match with us being the victors.

I don't believe in "magic cloud fairies" or any of that crap you just wrote.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So your position is that I need to prove that eyes aren't in different stages of evolution? That is abject hackery.

Every eye is in a different state of evolution. Every. Single. One. Evolution is a continuous process that operates on all populations.

Your objection betrays your abject ignorance.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't believe in "magic cloud fairies" or any of that crap you just wrote.

Sure you do. You just don't like to admit it, of course. Every person here sees you for exactly what you are, though.

 

[Ricochet]

Your post didn't address the point.

You didn't have a point from the beginning and never clarified. So par fo the course.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Are you aware of what a circular argument is?

Here to crap on another thread?

 

[Ricochet]

1. Here you're are absolutely wrong when you say "noboby". Plenty of religious people believe exactly just that. As a former Christian I understand this better than you.

2. You obviously did NOT understand this statement at all or the context that is being used. Hitchen is well aware of the definition of atheist. This is merely a statement of how people apply their atheism (non-belief) when it comes to other gods.

3. He never said it has anything with the existence of god. He's attacking the views of the Abrahamic god being all-good & love by apologists when clearly the old texts indicate otherwise.

4. Hitchen may not have the answer to the origin of life. Nobody does. Being "uncertain" is way better than being "certain" (through faith) of unsupported facts.

Hitchen is no expert on Abiogenesis or the Big Bang. He is not a scientist but a debater and not just an atheist but an anti-theist. He mainly attacks creationist beliefs and arguments.

Why not?

I just got down watching some more of Hitchens here are some of the things he says that I find to be wrong or misrepresentations.

1. You need religion to be good people.

Nobody makes this argument and he was corrected on this many many many times in his debates.

2. Everybody is an atheist when it comes to other gods, like Zeus or Thor.

In no way is anybody who believes in a god or the Christian God an atheist. This is simply definitional.

3. Religious people do bad things.

So what? Nobody is saying "religion" makes people good. This has nothing to do with the existence of God.

4. Says there are good explanations for the origin of life that don't include a "prime mover".

When confronted with quotes of the scientists who say that we haven't got a clue he say their statements are only about "uncertainty". If they are so uncertain how could there be "good explanations"?