christopher hitchens

[Cerpin Taxt]

How does God "get a free pass"?

I stated that God is "non-terrestrial life". Wouldn't aliens be "life", though extraterrestrial?

That depends. What is "life"?

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd be reeeeaaaallllllyyyy interested in the steps you take:

1.) To arrive at the conclusion that a god did it.

2.) To move from (1) to "My God did it."

Getting to (1) is something you still haven't accomplished, but even if you could get to (1), getting from there to (2) is still another hurdle.

It doesn't matter how I arrived there (which I am not debating anyway), as that doesn't change the truthfulness of my statement.

Btw, stop this silly diversion and address the substance of my statement.

Yeah, Loki's rule. He's awesome. He wants exactly what I want.

Actually, its that you'd rather rule yourself, so you can answer only to yourself.

Like the fact that there's no evidence he exists?

No, like the fact you fear accountability.

 

[Retro Rob]

That depends. What is "life"?

So are you saying that aliens wouldn't be "life"?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Meh, I think Hitchens was right about a lot of things, but I also think he was an asshole, fun to watch him debate.

 

[shira]

I have a friend I speak with almost daily, a believer of some sort I don't really fully understand probably because he is far more intelligent than I am and can pose to himself ideas that I can't follow very well and we have been discussing some of what went on in shira's thread. He was raised a Catholic but drove his Jesuit teachers crazy, he is not a believer in any traditional sense. I tried as hard as I could to follow what his reasoning is, and I don't really think I can do it justice or even know if I have what he thinks correct in what I am about to say, but I felt he was saying something like this and I found what I imagined he might be saying interesting:

We do not know anything about what happened before time began, I guess not even before something like ten to the minus 41st second as I remember. Everything, time and space appeared from nothing. The human mind can't comprehend such a thing. I got the impression that for him in a way I do not fully understand, the implication is clear to him it means there is something that had to, I don't know what, be involved somehow. Any way I think he feels the incomprehensibility of it all points him to a God. Maybe Einstein had the same kind of feeling.

At any rate, the universe seems to be here and whether your sense is that it just happened and nothing more can be said, or that if looking at the same facts one feels there has to be a Creator, why is one opinion more rational than the other? The time space continuum of our existence seems to have a beginning and any more than that we do not know so it's really not our knowledge that matters so much as it is as to what our knowledge causes us to feel, it seems to me. So why should I, a person who believes the universe just happened and no emotional or deeper Ah Ha moment comes with that contemplation, reject the experience of those who experience a feeling that we were created, perhaps with some intention. Some people can look at a picture and see paint and others a masterpiece. Beyond a point in time our physics doesn't tell us anything. What is the physics that has this limitation?

Anyway, no matter how deeply the Atheists rejects the logic of the Believer, and visa versa, and no matter how flawed or seemingly rational that logic may be, why one believes and another doubts, the ultimate validity of either view seems to me to be equally unknowable and maybe even ultimately personal and with no real relevance to anybody else.

The matter of importance to me, then, is not so much whether or not a God exists, but what you justify with your belief, where it leaves you morally. Do you see the world as one or do you see friend and foe. What do you intend.

I wholeheartedly agree with what I bolded.

With respect to the incomprehensibility of "What happened before the beginning?" that led your friend to a belief in God, I myself deal with this conundrum with the simple consideration that time itself is theorized to have been brought into existence by the Big Bang. Thus, if time itself didn't exist "before the Big Bang," the entire concept of "before the Big Bang" becomes meaningless. And if there is no "before the Big Bang," there is no causality "before the Big Bang." Look at that - a "creator" isn't even possible!

Unfortunately, it's probably impossible for the human mind to imagine a "timeless" universe from our timeful perspective. I'm comfortable with that contradiction; but I'm a physicist and I know from long experience that there are lots of well-accepted theories that are impossible to "see" in your mind. So why should this one additional "impossible to imagine" situation push me over the edge? For those of a non-scientific mind-set, however, I can understand that concrete "explanations" are demanded, and religion supplies those explanations for the vast majority of the human race.

 

[shira]

Meh, I think Hitchens was right about a lot of things, but I also think he was an asshole, fun to watch him debate.

Hey, Picasso was reputedly a monster when it came to his women. But he was also a hell of an artist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So are you saying that aliens wouldn't be "life"?

I don't know. What is your definition of "life"?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It doesn't matter how I arrived there (which I am not debating anyway), as that doesn't change the truthfulness of my statement.

But yes, it absolutely matters. You're suggesting that the scientists reject creationism because they are afraid of your god in particular. That idea is laughable. Scientists reject creationism because you can't get to (1), so it has nothing to do with (2).

Btw, stop this silly diversion and address the substance of my statement.

What "substance"?

Actually, its that you'd rather rule yourself, so you can answer only to yourself.

Uh-huh. Thanks for the mind-reading job, Swami. Who do you think you're convincing?

No, like the fact you fear accountability.

I cannot fear accountability to a thing that I do not believe exists. Again, you're putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't know. What is your definition of "life"?

The opposite of non-life.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The opposite of non-life.

I suppose I was asking too much to expect you to even know what a definition is.

This is today's Christianity.

 

[Retro Rob]

But yes, it absolutely matters. You're suggesting that the scientists reject creationism because they are afraid of your god in particular. That idea is laughable. Scientists reject creationism because you can't get to (1), so it has nothing to do with (2).

LOL -- my comment had nothing to do with honest scientists who are interested in finding out what's true or not, but it was aimed at atheists who simply want to deny God's existence for the reasons I mentioned.

What "substance"?

If you have to ask, then you're in over your head.

Uh-huh. Thanks for the mind-reading job, Swami. Who do you think you're convincing?

Nonsense. I wasn't always a believer, so I know the "benefits" of what I call "self rule".

I cannot fear accountability to a thing that I do not believe exists. Again, you're putting the cart before the horse.

I thought you used to believe -- correct me if I'm wrong. So yes you CAN fear accountability if you knew what it was like to *be* accountable.

 

[jackstar7]

The opposite of non-life.

The sky is non-yellow.

Does that help explain how that doesn't work?

 

[Retro Rob]

I suppose was asking too much to expect you to even know what a definition is.

This is today's Christianity.

MY definition of "life" would be anything that can make copies of itself.

Though this is the best I can come up with.

Now, what's YOUR definition?

 

[Moonbeam]

I wholeheartedly agree with what I bolded.

With respect to the incomprehensibility of "What happened before the beginning?" that led your friend to a belief in God, I myself deal with this conundrum with the simple consideration that time itself is theorized to have been brought into existence by the Big Bang. Thus, if time itself didn't exist "before the Big Bang," the entire concept of "before the Big Bang" becomes meaningless. And if there is no "before the Big Bang," there is no causality "before the Big Bang." Look at that - a "creator" isn't even possible!

Unfortunately, it's probably impossible for the human mind to imagine a "timeless" universe from our timeful perspective. I'm comfortable with that contradiction; but I'm a physicist and I know from long experience that there are lots of well-accepted theories that are impossible to "see" in your mind. So why should this one additional "impossible to imagine" situation push me over the edge? For those of a non-scientific mind-set, however, I can understand that concrete "explanations" are demanded, and religion supplies those explanations for the vast majority of the human race.

I have a very similar view. I can't get the Ah Ha of what I described and so I think I may not have understood my friend's position properly or no flash of understanding and realization happens for me in that way because some sort of shock to my thinking hasn't happened or for some other reason.

At any rate, let me ask you about chaos theory and causality. Would it be physics wise wrong to conclude that from the first instance of the universe, the first cause and effect, everything else that has happened sense is a foregone result? I think sometimes that the universe must manifest according to it's laws. I have heard that the universe might have come into being in a way say that life could never occur, if the laws were different, so why do we have the laws that we do? I think the question must be meaningless because the laws are as they are and there's no use wondering about them being different, but I want your scientific opinion, if one is possible here?

 

[Moonbeam]

MY definition of "life" would be anything that can make copies of itself.

Though this is the best I can come up with.

Now, what's YOUR definition?

Would you call a machine that can take parts off a shelf and assemble another 'take parts off a shelf assemble' alive?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

LOL -- my comment had nothing to do with honest scientists who are interested in finding out what's true or not

It has everything to do with those scientists. "God did it" is rejected in EVERY aspect of science for reasons that have nothing to do with what you claimed.

...but it was aimed at atheists who simply want to deny God's existence for the reasons I mentioned.

And I'm telling you that those atheists do not exist.

If you have to ask, then you're in over your head.

If you can't answer, then it doesn't exist.

Nonsense. I wasn't always a believer, so I know the "benefits" of what I call "self rule".

Yes, and we all think just like you do, Rob. Fucking A you have a tiny little mind.

I thought you used to believe -- correct me if I'm wrong. So yes you CAN fear accountability if you knew what it was like to *be* accountable.

I do not know what it's like to be accountable to a god, and neither do you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

MY definition of "life" would be anything that can make copies of itself.

Well then nothing is alive. That's a pretty useless definition.

Though this is the best I can come up with.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Now, what's YOUR definition?

Why do you need my defintion? Have I made any claims about what things are alive? You're invited to cite which usages of mine are unclear to you.

 

[Retro Rob]

It has everything to do with those scientists. "God did it" is rejected in EVERY aspect of science for reasons that have nothing to do with what you claimed.

I'm not talking about "science", Sherlock.

I'm specifically talking about the plethora of atheists who used to believe, HATED the restrictions their religion put on them, and now are "free".

Those who reject God for those reasons don't do so for scientific reasons.

And I'm telling you that those atheists do not exist.

And I'm telling you you're either ignorant or lying, or likely both.

Yes, and we all think just like you do, Rob. Fucking A you have a tiny little mind.

Well, my experiences go a long way in helping me sniff out liars, like you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well then nothing is alive. That's a pretty useless definition.

Well, I'm fine with not knowing how to define life -- but that doesn't mean that I don't know it when I see it.

Why do you need my defintion? Have I made any claims about what things are alive? You're invited to cite which usages of mine are unclear to you.

Translation: "I don't know what life is, either".

Welcome to the club.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm not talking about "science", Sherlock.

I'm specifically talking about the plethora of atheists who used to believe, HATED the restrictions their religion put on them, and now are "free".
.

I don't think the restrictions religion has had anything to do with it. I think they had an open mind and used their rational logic thinking brains to rule out God as a possibility since it's the least likely option with no proof other than an old book saying as such.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not talking about "science", Sherlock.

But yes, you are. You said "Actually, believe "God did it" has tremendous implications on humanity as a whole. So there are moral and philosophical reasons why they don't like that answer."

"Humanity as a whole" necessarily includes scientists.

I'm specifically talking about the plethora of atheists who used to believe, HATED the restrictions their religion put on them, and now are "free".

We're talking about the suitability of "God did it" as an "explanation" for a natural phenomenon. I showed that it is rejected for reasons which do not include what you claim.

Also, where is this "plethora of atheists"? Show me that it exists outside your imagination.

Those who reject God for those reasons don't do so for scientific reasons.

That's just plain question-begging.

And I'm telling you you're either ignorant or lying, or likely both.

Yet you've actually demonstrated neither.

Well, my experiences go a long way in helping me sniff out liars, like you.

That's a bold accusation. Gonna try to substantiate it, Chief?

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't think the restrictions religion has had anything to do with it. I think they had an open mind and used their rational logic thinking brains to rule out God as a possibility since it's the least likely option with no proof other than an old book saying as such.

I've been there, and I am not the only one.

Its sooooo MUCH easier to live your life exactly they way YOU want to when your preferred way is in conflict with your religious beliefs.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, I'm fine with not knowing how to define life -- but that doesn't mean that I don't know it when I see it.

Actually, yes, that's exactly what it means. It means you're just going to label things "life" willy-nilly as it suits you. That's how we know your claims about "life" and "non-life" are total bullshit.

Translation: "I don't know what life is, either".

Welcome to the club.

You're very much correct that I am not certain what "life" is. I do know that by the working biological definition of life, your God is not alive.

 

[Retro Rob]

Actually, yes, that's exactly what it means. It means you're just going to label things "life" willy-nilly as it suits you. That's how we know your claims about "life" and "non-life" are total bullshit.

I recall you asking me for "MY" definition. Of course "my" definition is going to suit me.

Did you ask me "the" definition of life?

You're very much correct that I am not certain what "life" is. I do know that by the working biological definition of life, your God is not alive.

Did you recover his dead body?

 

[soulcougher73]

I've been there, and I am not the only one.

Its sooooo MUCH easier to live your life exactly they way YOU want to when your preferred way is in conflict with your religious beliefs.

I can understand that. But i wouldnt see THAT as the reason someone would become and athiest. I would think the rational logical parts of our brain would lead us to that. With those things just being a benefit

One thing some athiests find scary is that their are people who would be THAT bad without religion telling them not to. What comes natural to us obviously doesnt come natural to some theists. And that is scary.

"Damn i wish i could just kill babies willy nilly, but....God says not to" LOL