christopher hitchens

[PingviN]

Here to crap on another thread?

Maybe he's genuinly interested in learning what a circular argument is? Like

"Are you aware of what a circular argument is? Because I think I missed that part in high school."

 

[Victorian Gray]

Maybe he's genuinly interested in learning what a circular argument is? Like

"Are you aware of what a circular argument is? Because I think I missed that part in high school."

Based on his behaviour in a couple of other threads and the manner in which he entered this thread, he seems like someone 'on a mission'.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

 

[kage69]

Based on his behaviour in a couple of other threads and the manner in which he entered this thread, he seems like someone 'on a mission'.

You see surges in this kind of thing when things are bad for protestant American culture warriors. Also, election run up. They're not here to win any arguments, just drop threadcraps until the place clears out.

Hitchens has mopped the floor with so many silly religious people that he's forever a pariah among them. They usually feel the need to sound off on the guy, or in the case we just had here, try the "Meh..." approach, I guess just hoping the reader isn't familiar with Hitchens work or interested enough to watch an entire debate (or more) through to the end.

He'll fade away again once the GOP loses in 2016, watch. :biggrin:

 

[buckshot24]

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.

You're right, "nobody" is too strong. However nobody that I've see Hitchens debate ever uses this argument.

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.

You can make the point without saying things that are by definition incorrect.

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.

I'm not talking about his criticisms of the OT, that is different. In his debates about the existence of God he always talks about the "bad behavior" of religious people in the history of the Church.

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.

Then he shouldn't say there are "good explanations" to it.

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.

He first says there are "good answers" then when confronted with quotes of people (in the field) saying we haven't a clue he doesn't admit he was wrong he applauds their uncertainty as noble. Well, are their "good explanations" or not? No, there isn't.

 

[buckshot24]

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

Pointing at existing eyes assuming that they evolved to show how eyes could evolve is circular.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Pointing at existing eyes assuming that they evolved to show how eyes could evolve is circular.

And that's a strawman, so fuck you.

 

[Ricochet]

You're right, "nobody" is too strong. However nobody that I've see Hitchens debate ever uses this argument.

You don't watch enough Hitchens debate. What do you think men like Dr. Turek argue for when they argue for objective morality (from god)?

You can make the point without saying things that are by definition incorrect.

I cannot believe you belabor this point. Having not much else, you're looking to tag him on semantics. His choice of words is perfectly chosen for his target audience and you're too dense to see it. It fulfilled its intended purpose of getting under the skin of theists.

Remember the argument that some Christians make? Atheists aren't really atheists, they just reject Jesus. They just reject the holey spirit or they just hate god. His statement is not quite as severe as that, but you should finally understand the intent.

I'm not talking about his criticisms of the OT, that is different. In his debates about the existence of God he always talks about the "bad behavior" of religious people in the history of the Church.

Here's a really big hint. Guess who wrote "God Is Not Great"? You don't suppose someone would promote material from his book?

Why wouldn't the "bad behavior" of religious people be a good talking point when discussing the history of belief in deities.

Then he shouldn't say there are "good explanations" to it. He first says there are "good answers" then when confronted with quotes of people (in the field) saying we haven't a clue he doesn't admit he was wrong he applauds their uncertainty as noble. Well, are their "good explanations" or not? No, there isn't.

What phrase would you have him use? How about "best available information". Link to the actual specifics of experts in the field saying they haven't a clue. All of this is too vague and we're only getting your side.

 

[Ricochet]

Pointing at existing eyes assuming that they evolved to show how eyes could evolve is circular.

That is just hackery on your part to prove an invalid point. It is such a poor attempt but it is obvious you clearly don't grasp the basic concept of evolution.

FYI, theists (pro intelligent design) like to use the eye as the perfect example of complexity that evolution cannot derive.

 

[disappoint]

I think that he is dead.

Oh I'm sorry perhaps you misunderstood the question. Allow me to translate the OP's question for you. The question they are really asking is: "Do you believe in God?"

I guarantee all the answers except your own and some troll posts will surely fall on either side of the theist/atheist line. You're welcome.

 

[disappoint]

Based on his behaviour in a couple of other threads and the manner in which he entered this thread, he seems like someone 'on a mission'.

Inideed he is.

You see surges in this kind of thing when things are bad for protestant American culture warriors. Also, election run up. They're not here to win any arguments, just drop threadcraps until the place clears out.

Hitchens has mopped the floor with so many silly religious people that he's forever a pariah among them. They usually feel the need to sound off on the guy, or in the case we just had here, try the "Meh..." approach, I guess just hoping the reader isn't familiar with Hitchens work or interested enough to watch an entire debate (or more) through to the end.

He'll fade away again once the GOP loses in 2016, watch. :biggrin:

Hitchens has mopped the floor with no one. Neither he nor any other atheist will win anything.

You see, you have made the biggest, classic blunder of all time. You have underestimated your enemy. Perhaps the enemy of most humanity in fact. The "Meh..." approach begins with Meh because it doesn't matter to them if they "win" any debates. Their definition of win is far different than your own.

Worry not about your intellect however, for you are far from stupid despite your massive blunder. After all you wrote this:

I guess just hoping the reader isn't familiar with Hitchens work or interested enough to watch an entire debate (or more) through to the end.

You are quite correct. Unfortunately for most of humanity, most of humanity doesn't have the attention span nor the inclination to believe the atheist side of the argument. It is in fact rejected by their minds before it even has a chance to be accepted.

Although Sam Harris has stated that approximately 50% will be persuaded by mischaracterizations of what he said in a debate, I'm unsure of how he came to that particular number. He is a neuroscientist so he likely can back that number up with some evidence, though it could be due to a small sample size of polling making it questionable. But no matter.

Before I lose the audience I will leave you with the goal of every religious person whether they realize it or not. It is to bring about the apocalypse. The evidence for this resides in most religious texts.

They literally feel as though if they could just eradicate everyone who thinks differently than they do, that God will start over with a clean slate and bring about utopia on Earth. Their goal is peace, prosperity, love, abundance, perfection in every way. Utopia.

They don't need any evidence to believe this. It is a feeling implanted in the subconscious part of the mind that most of them have little to no access to. The subconscious/feeling part of the mind is far more powerful than the conscious/critical thinking portion. It is the origin of most of the decisions everyone makes whether they realize it or not, and most don't. As I said earlier they will reject any evidence to it's contrary no matter how well thought out or how strong an argument you have and no matter how much evidence you bring to bear.

They don't need to win any debates with logic, reasoning, evidence, nor critical thinking skills. They can and have bypassed the critical thinking portion of the mind with the greatest of ease.

Though I could say more and have left some information out, in conclusion, at least for now, I am not saying there is nor there isn't a God. I don't think anyone has access to that kind of information really. But what I have found curious is that when I asked religious people how certain are they that a God exists they often respond with "100% certain". Atheists are much less likely to be so certain. Take that to mean what thou wilst.

 

[disappoint]

That is just hackery on your part to prove an invalid point. It is such a poor attempt but it is obvious you clearly don't grasp the basic concept of evolution.

FYI, theists (pro intelligent design) like to use the eye as the perfect example of complexity that evolution cannot derive.

Isn't it funny then that the eye hardly holds a candle to the brain as the most complex of human parts? Perhaps they don't see it that way. Perhaps they feel as though the brain is simpler than the eye. Now why do you suppose that is?

 

[JD50]

Hitchens was amazing, I love watching his debates on youtube.

BTW, you guys shouldn't waste your time with Buck. He'll argue that water isn't wet and call you crazy for even thinking it is.

 

[buckshot24]

You don't watch enough Hitchens debate. What do you think men like Dr. Turek argue for when they argue for objective morality (from god)?

That isn't from religion but keep equivocating.

I cannot believe you belabor this point. Having not much else, you're looking to tag him on semantics. His choice of words is perfectly chosen for his target audience and you're too dense to see it. It fulfilled its intended purpose of getting under the skin of theists.

I'm not sure why you keep defending it. No theist is an atheist, at all.

Here's a really big hint. Guess who wrote "God Is Not Great"? You don't suppose someone would promote material from his book?

So what? In his debates about the existence of God he brings up crap done by the Catholic Church constantly. I'm right.

Why wouldn't the "bad behavior" of religious people be a good talking point when discussing the history of belief in deities.

Not the topic of debates?

What phrase would you have him use? How about "best available information". Link to the actual specifics of experts in the field saying they haven't a clue. All of this is too vague and we're only getting your side.

I'd like him to say we have no idea how life could have started because that is the truth. The fairy tales proposed are just that. "backs of crystals", "thermal heat vents", "RNA world", whatever is all wishful thinking and none of them are "good explanations".

 

[buckshot24]

That is just hackery on your part to prove an invalid point. It is such a poor attempt but it is obvious you clearly don't grasp the basic concept of evolution.

Because of reasons?

 

[fskimospy]

I'd like him to say we have no idea how life could have started because that is the truth. The fairy tales proposed are just that. "backs of crystals", "thermal heat vents", "RNA world", whatever is all wishful thinking and none of them are "good explanations".

Of course we have an idea of how life could have started, we just don't have enough evidence to say that any of our current explanations are well enough supported to embrace as the probable cause.

Literally all of them are vastly more probable than a creator entity, however, as a creator entity suffers from the same first cause problems, only he's many orders of magnitude more complex. It's funny how your basic argument is 'RNA world is just a fairy tale! That's why instead I choose to embrace this other fairy tale.'

 

[Retro Rob]

Great Debater, whit, and Wordsmith. As a Debater, he wasn't always fair and would use various persuasion techniques that are Logical Fallacies(Appeals to Emotion were common), however, so did his opponents. All who dared to debate him were always challenged and even the best of them often came away dazed by how he took the audience away from them.

Much more can be said about him, he was just such a great orator. We all lost someone truly talented when he died.

I agree with Hitch's intelligence and whit, but I've longed stopped watching "debates" about the existence of God.

One person pointed this out to me as to why these debates are ultimately pointless:

Imagine that a rock is floating past Pluto right now...but its too small for us to see using current scientific instruments. Staging debates and "arguments" for and against that possibility does NOTHING to change the objective reality that a rock either is or isn't floating past Pluto at this moment.

I see "debates" about God's existence in a very similar fashion. Good or bad arguments for or against the objective existence/non-existence of God does nothing to alter either reality -- logical/illogical arguments does nothing to change either fact.

...so it goes with debating about God's existence/non-existence.

 

[kage69]

Hitchens has mopped the floor with no one. Neither he nor any other atheist will win anything.

Woefully false on both I'm afraid, as many an embarrassing debate with creationists has shown. Your abject denial here makes me think you fall squarely into the crowd I was referring to.

You see, you have made the biggest, classic blunder of all time. You have underestimated your enemy. Perhaps the enemy of most humanity in fact. The "Meh..." approach begins with Meh because it doesn't matter to them if they "win" any debates. Their definition of win is far different than your own.

Not at all, you're just confused in thinking that a.) they're my enemies, and b.) that I was indeed describing that their goal is to win - which is odd, as I specifically wrote: "They're not here to win any arguments, just drop threadcraps until the place clears out."

Do try and not confuse pity and resentment with hatred, I think you'll find it helps.

Worry not about your intellect however, for you are far from stupid despite your massive blunder. After all you wrote this:

I'm not worried about my intellect here, afterall I don't cling to creationist nonsense and am not beholden to any religious notion that makes me refuse to accept reality - or reality recorded on youtube for that matter.

Funny that you would bring up Sam Harris too. Would you like to bet which of our positions Sam would likely side with? He's another of my favorites, and a great mind who isn't confused at all about Hitchens and his legacy. Perhaps some choice excerpts from Harris might help you and rocksalt24 out, I'll try to hit the forum up later when I have more time to post some of that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I didn't agree with Hitchens about everything, but he was spot on about religion. Some good videos on Youtube of him making people look silly.

 

[soulcougher73]

I agree with Hitch's intelligence and whit, but I've longed stopped watching "debates" about the existence of God.

One person pointed this out to me as to why these debates are ultimately pointless:

Imagine that a rock is floating past Pluto right now...but its too small for us to see using current scientific instruments. Staging debates and "arguments" for and against that possibility does NOTHING to change the objective reality that a rock either is or isn't floating past Pluto at this moment.

I see "debates" about God's existence in a very similar fashion. Good or bad arguments for or against the objective existence/non-existence of God does nothing to alter either reality -- logical/illogical arguments does nothing to change either fact.

...so it goes with debating about God's existence/non-existence.

I agree with you on this overall point. It is pointless. But its only logical if you cant prove a rock is floating past Pluto to not believe one is until its proven. Unfortunately religion doesnt follow this logic. It assumes there is a rock floating past Pluto with no evidence one is.

 

[buckshot24]

I didn't agree with Hitchens about everything, but he was spot on about religion. Some good videos on Youtube of him making people look silly.

Hitchens had a lot of things to say about religion that I totally agree with. His criticisms of the Catholic Church (I'm not Catholic) were pretty much spot on. His description of the Galileo affair isn't accurate however. The problem is that none of those criticisms have anything to do with whether God exists or not.

 

[Retro Rob]

I agree with you on this overall point. It is pointless. But its only logical if you cant prove a rock is floating past Pluto to not believe one is until its proven. Unfortunately religion doesnt follow this logic. It assumes there is a rock floating past Pluto with no evidence one is.

Whoa up there...there is always something to go off of.

There are other rocks floating in space, so it's not illogical that a rock is floating past Pluto. Just like people assume a creator because life cannot come from non-life.

But when it comes to dealing with objective reality, logic itself simply fails.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Hitchens had a lot of things to say about religion that I totally agree with. His criticisms of the Catholic Church (I'm not Catholic) were pretty much spot on. His description of the Galileo affair isn't accurate however. The problem is that none of those criticisms have anything to do with whether God exists or not.

He had solid thinking for why god isn't likely to exist, at least not any of these gods worshiped on earth.

 

[buckshot24]

He had solid thinking for why god isn't likely to exist, at least not any of these gods worshiped on earth.

I've never heard any of these solid reasons.

 

[JD50]

Whoa up there...there is always something to go off of.

There are other rocks floating in space, so it's not illogical that a rock is floating past Pluto. Just like people assume a creator because life cannot come from non-life.

But when it comes to dealing with objective reality, logic itself simply fails.

My god you are terrible with analogies.

It's logical to think there might be a rock floating past pluto because there are other rocks in space. It's logical to think that there is a god because other gods exist, wait what?