PDA

View Full Version : Evangelical Atheist Christopher Hitchens to debate Rick and Bubba live at 10 AM EST



Rebel Yell
03-02-2009, 09:17 AM
I've heard Dawkins on the show. Those two rednecks owned him. They said Dawkins is very civilized when debating God/No God. They described Hitchens as debating Dawkins drinking Whiskey. Ought to be good.


http://www.rickandbubba.com/

Click Listen Live.

wilbur
03-02-2009, 09:48 AM
What a nice surprise.... I get to sit home and listen thanks to the snow.

Rebel Yell
03-02-2009, 09:50 AM
What a nice surprise.... I get to sit home and listen thanks to the snow.

I thought you'd like it.:D

Rebel Yell
03-02-2009, 10:07 AM
Hitchens coming up now.

wilbur
03-02-2009, 10:35 AM
A good showing by "The Hitch" ;)

Rebel Yell
03-02-2009, 10:42 AM
A good showing by "The Hitch" ;)

I always enjoy hearing from both sides. Interesting to hear opposing views.

Rebel Yell
03-03-2009, 09:31 AM
John Lennox, the man Hitchens is to debate tonight is on now. Same link as above.

wilbur
03-03-2009, 10:11 AM
I missed this one... didnt wake up in time.

Rebel Yell
03-03-2009, 10:22 AM
I missed this one... didnt wake up in time.

John Lennox falls in the category I put myself in. Science and Christianity are right, and to discount one to prove the other is just ignorant.

wilbur
03-03-2009, 11:22 AM
John Lennox falls in the category I put myself in. Science and Christianity are right, and to discount one to prove the other is just ignorant.

I don't think science necessarily does that... science does make life harder for the apologist sure.. we've long since past the time where God can be considered a good explanation for anything.. and are now in a time where God has to be explained... in SPITE of reality.. but really the age old problems of needless suffering and evil are still just as potent faith destroyers as any scientific discovery.

If those two issues haven't swayed your faith, then I don't think many scientific theories or discoveries would... since thats where most scientific ideas like evolution really poke at religion... it simply makes one have to justify WAY more suffering than was originally imagined.

What really does religion in, is standards of evidence. One cannot use the same standards of evidence to judge religious belief that we require in any other area of prime importance and still have it come out the other side intact. One has to resort to "ways of knowing" like divine revelation.. which are just excuses to assign absolute truth status to personal whims, desires, or opinions without having to meet standards of evidence. Thats really the challenge for religion today... to justify why its ways of knowing truth are still valid despite modern rigorous standards of evidence.

FlaGator
03-03-2009, 11:36 AM
I don't think science necessarily does that... science does make life harder for the apologist sure.. we've long since past the time where God can be considered a good explanation for anything.. and are now in a time where God has to be explained... in SPITE of reality.. but really the age old problems of needless suffering and evil are still just as potent faith destroyers as any scientific discovery.

If those two issues haven't swayed your faith, then I don't think many scientific theories or discoveries would... since thats where most scientific ideas like evolution really poke at religion... it simply makes one have to justify WAY more suffering than was originally imagined.

What really does religion in, is standards of evidence. One cannot use the same standards of evidence to judge religious belief that we require in any other area of prime importance and still have it come out the other side intact. One has to resort to "ways of knowing" like divine revelation.. which are just excuses to assign absolute truth status to personal whims, desires, or opinions without having to meet standards of evidence.

How does it make things harder for apologists? I find that science confirms many of my beliefs and I will use scientific discoveries to make my point. Science and theology compliment each other, in my opinion, and they also address different questions concerning creation and the nature and meaning of life.

Rebel Yell
03-03-2009, 11:42 AM
I don't think science necessarily does that... science does make life harder for the apologist sure.. we've long since past the time where God can be considered a good explanation for anything.. and are now in a time where God has to be explained... in SPITE of reality.. but really the age old problems of needless suffering and evil are still just as potent faith destroyers as any scientific discovery.

If those two issues haven't swayed your faith, then I don't think many scientific theories or discoveries would... since thats where most scientific ideas like evolution really poke at religion... it simply makes one have to justify WAY more suffering than was originally imagined.

What really does religion in, is standards of evidence. One cannot use the same standards of evidence to judge religious belief that we require in any other area of prime importance and still have it come out the other side intact. One has to resort to "ways of knowing" like divine revelation.. which are just excuses to assign absolute truth status to personal whims, desires, or opinions without having to meet standards of evidence. Thats really the challenge for religion today... to justify why its ways of knowing truth are still valid despite modern rigorous standards of evidence.

Dawkins said in his dabate with Lennox that religion can't exist with science.

FlaGator
03-03-2009, 11:45 AM
Dawkins said in his dabate with Lennox that religion can't exist with science.

Hitchens I have respect for. He is brash but his points are generally well thought out and thought provoking. Dawkins on the other hand is not has smart or as good a critical thinker as he believes he is.

ralph wiggum
03-03-2009, 12:15 PM
Who are Rick & Bubba and why should I care? :confused:

Rebel Yell
03-03-2009, 12:30 PM
Who are Rick & Bubba and why should I care? :confused:

Morning radio show. I guess you shouldn't.

wilbur
03-03-2009, 02:01 PM
Hitchens I have respect for. He is brash but his points are generally well thought out and thought provoking. Dawkins on the other hand is not has smart or as good a critical thinker as he believes he is.

Dawkins is generally pretty smart... and while he doesnt always elaborate on things with the extreme minutia that would satisfy most philosophers... his positions are still for the most part unassailable. I think he always looses points simply because he is not as likable as someone like Hitchens who has much more personal charisma and sort of charm... even to many of those who disagree with him completely.

wilbur
03-03-2009, 03:11 PM
How does it make things harder for apologists? I find that science confirms many of my beliefs and I will use scientific discoveries to make my point. Science and theology compliment each other, in my opinion, and they also address different questions concerning creation and the nature and meaning of life.

Increasingly, as science advances, any theologian must continually find himself mystified as to why humanity, allegedly the reason FOR the universe.. the creatures made in God's image, is such an insignificant part of creation.... and why in every single event or thing for which a proximate cause has been uncovered to date by humanity (to innumerable to list), have still failed to uncover God.. and makes his presumed necessity as an explanation for anything more laughable by the second.

But theologians have imagined complicated mind twisting incoherent thought castles to rationalize why evil can exist at all, or needless suffering.. or why God, who desires only ultimate good, should do anything at all except marvel at his own goodness.. or create himself over and over again.

Ultimately they must re-answer all those questions for every major scientific discovery that makes us realize that our perceptions about the scale of those things (needless suffering, our insignificance etc) have been drastic under-estimations. They will have to work harder and harder to justify the necessity of God as more and more knowledge is uncovered that seems to defy their explanations of the purpose and workings of the universe... they have to work harder to explain why so many things in the universe are at odds with the concept of an omni-benevolent, omni* capable god.

I'm coming off with mixed messages here, but I guess I am really trying to say that faithful will always come up with ways to rationalize any scientific discovery as theology affirming, regardless if it is or not. So in that way, a scientific theory will probably never be fatal to religion.(even though perhaps it should be)

The problems that many scientific theories pose for them are simply the same problems they have been rationalizing away for centuries... the scale just has to be adjusted and they have to account for more.

The idea that religious claims should be examined within the philosophy of science really is the religion killer... should it ever take hold (not likely) we should expect it to fade away. This is what most of the "new atheists" argue that we should do.

FlaGator
03-03-2009, 03:48 PM
Increasingly, as science advances, any theologian must continually find himself mystified as to why humanity, allegedly the reason FOR the universe.. the creatures made in God's image, is such an insignificant part of creation.... and why in every single event or thing for which a proximate cause has been uncovered to date by humanity (to innumerable to list), have still failed to uncover God.. and makes his presumed necessity as an explanation for anything more laughable by the second.


I think perhaps you over-estimate the resolution of mysteries. For every mystery science solves it creates 10 new ones. Theologians are not any more mystified by the creation and the reasons for the universe than they were 10, 100 or 1000 years ago. Science just deepens are respect for the character of God. Science will never be able to assertain the nature of God because God exists as the creator and separate from the Creation. We are equiped to find evidence of his handy work but not of God himself. Science determined the expanding universe which led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. Many theist scientist battled against the big bang because they feared it would validate the need for a creator. Many of them has spent a huge effort to prove that no creator is needed but their results have been less than spectacular. It seems the only one laughing is you and I suspect that is a kin to whistling past the grave yard. You know that you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God.



But theologians have imagined complicated mind twisting incoherent thought castles to rationalize why evil can exist at all, or needless suffering.. or why God, who desires only ultimate good, should do anything at all except marvel at his own goodness.. or create himself over and over again.

OK, lets do away with God for a moment. Does the evil and needless suffering now make sense to you? Is it all explained by the absense of a Creator



Ultimately they must re-answer all those questions for every major scientific discovery that makes us realize that our perceptions about the scale of those things (needless suffering, our insignificance etc) have been drastic under-estimations. They will have to work harder and harder to justify the necessity of God as more and more knowledge is uncovered that seems to defy their explanations of the purpose and workings of the universe... they have to work harder to explain why so many things in the universe are at odds with the concept of an omni-benevolent, omni* capable god.


The only ones who have to re-answer questions are those who put God in too small of a box to begin with. Some did and do use God to fill in the gaps but in reality God is author of the gaps and the creator of the physical laws that fill them.



I'm coming off with mixed messages here, but I guess I am really trying to say that faithful will always come up with ways to rationalize any scientific discovery as theology affirming, regardless if it is or not. So in that way, a scientific theory will probably never be fatal to religion.(even though perhaps it should be)

The problems that many scientific theories pose for them are simply the same problems they have been rationalizing away for centuries... the scale just has to be adjusted and they have to account for more.

The idea that religious claims should be examined within the philosophy of science really is the religion killer... should it ever take hold (not likely) we should expect it to fade away. This is what most of the "new atheists" argue that we should do.

Here is the problem atheists have. They do not understand God and they define Him with human characteristics and motives. They see Him a just a superior being, a super human, when He is so much more than that. When I hear atheists speak about God I realize why they are so wrong, they don't have the mind to grasp the fact that the nature of God can't be grasped.

It's ironic, but I too don't believe in the god that atheists don't believe in. This is why they fail to change the minds of people of faith; they argue that their vision of God doesn't exist and they are right. Most people of faith, however, don't recognize the god they speak of. This is why religions are growing and atheistic thought remains a stagnant minority, neither growing nor shrinking.

ralph wiggum
03-03-2009, 05:28 PM
Morning radio show. I guess you shouldn't.

I didn't mean that offensively to anyone, I've just never heard of them.

wilbur
03-03-2009, 06:34 PM
Many of them has spent a huge effort to prove that no creator is needed but their results have been less than spectacular. It seems the only one laughing is you and I suspect that is a kin to whistling past the grave yard. You know that you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God.


But we can prove every core claim of a religion false, nonsensical or unjustifiable. That is all that is needed. Furthermore, the theist must also be able to move beyond the position that God is simply one interesting possibility among many different possibilities... to a position where God is the only and absolute truth.

Science may raise more questions as things are learned, but the key difference is that science doesn't claim to have certain, absolute truth from the outset. The scientist is free to discard what he previously thought he knew. The theist has to justify why his absolute truth is still absolute truth despite their claims not meeting even the bare minimum for contemporary standards of evidence. This is why it gets harder for the apologist.... in a sphere that demands evidence.. the apologist must continually justify why he doesn't need evidence for his claims... or at least not the same type of evidence or to the same degree as other scientific questions... or why evidence against his claims really isnt evidence. And as the claims start to look more and more suspect, he must still rationalize in increasingly convoluted ways.

Creationists comically escape this problem by asserting that the literal truth of scripture must be presumed without any justification what-so-ever... and anything that appears to be contrary is just OUR mistaken interpretation of reality.



OK, lets do away with God for a moment. Does the evil and needless suffering now make sense to you? Is it all explained by the absense of a Creator


Not in and of it self... evil and needless suffering simply arent incompatible with the absence of a omni-benevolent, omni* capable creator. One could even say those things are compatible with a God that is imperfect, very powerful but not omni* capable, or of limited knowledge... or maybe even is partly evil.. but those options arent available to most theists.



It's ironic, but I too don't believe in the god that atheists don't believe in. This is why they fail to change the minds of people of faith; they argue that their vision of God doesn't exist and they are right. Most people of faith, however, don't recognize the god they speak of. This is why religions are growing and atheistic thought remains a stagnant minority, neither growing nor shrinking.

Well, its impossible to discuss the God of classical theism in any way without assuming He has human characteristics... its built into it at its core... especially Christianity.

MrsSmith
03-03-2009, 06:46 PM
But we can prove every core claim of a religion false, nonsensical or unjustifiable. That is all that is needed. Furthermore, the theist must also be able to move beyond the position that God is simply one interesting possibility among many different possibilities... to a position where God is the only and absolute truth.

Science may raise more questions as things are learned, but the key difference is that science doesn't claim to have certain, absolute truth from the outset. The scientist is free to discard what he previously thought he knew. The theist has to justify why his absolute truth is still absolute truth despite their claims not meeting even the bare minimum for contemporary standards of evidence. This is why it gets harder for the apologist.... in a sphere that demands evidence.. the apologist must continually justify why he doesn't need evidence for his claims... or at least not the same type of evidence or to the same degree as other scientific questions... or why evidence against his claims really isnt evidence. And as the claims start to look more and more suspect, he must still rationalize in increasingly convoluted ways.

Creationists comically escape this problem by asserting that the literal truth of scripture must be presumed without any justification what-so-ever... and anything that appears to be contrary is just OUR mistaken interpretation of reality.



Not in and of it self... evil and needless suffering simply arent incompatible with the absence of a omni-benevolent, omni* capable creator. One could even say those things are compatible with a God that is imperfect, very powerful but not omni* capable, or of limited knowledge... or maybe even is partly evil.. but those options arent available to most theists.



Well, its impossible to discuss the God of classical theism in any way without assuming He has human characteristics... its built into it at its core... especially Christianity.
What a load of hogwash. :rolleyes: You sound like my 11 year old explaining rocket science...because she knows absolutely nothing about that subject, either.

wilbur
03-03-2009, 07:00 PM
What a load of hogwash. :rolleyes: You sound like my 11 year old explaining rocket science...because she knows absolutely nothing about that subject, either.

Every theist proclaims to know at least some of the desires and wants of God... what he expects of us and what he doesn't. Theists also generally say he articulated these wishes in particular books... and even that most human traits we consider positive, like unconditional love, he possess is the most perfect and pure form. So yes, one must assume God has human-like characteristics.... or rather from the theists perspective, humans have godlike characteristics in lesser form.

MrsSmith
03-03-2009, 07:20 PM
Every theist proclaims to know at least some of the desires and wants of God... what he expects of us and what he doesn't. Theists also generally say he articulated these wishes in particular books... and even that most human traits we consider positive, like unconditional love, he possess is the most perfect and pure form. So yes, one must assume God has human-like characteristics.... or rather from the theists perspective, humans have godlike characteristics in lesser form.

You know, if I were to discuss rocket science with my 11 year old, she would go read a book about rocket science...(and not one that argues that rocket science does not exist and/or has been disproven) - and then she would come back to me with some facts to back her viewpoint. Of course, my 11 year old is a smart kid.

Your entire post was hogwash, not just the incorrect ASSumptions about God. Seriously, lay down your philosophy books and go read a textbook about theology (not one that argues that God doesn't exist and/or has been disproven.) Learn SOMETHING about the subject!


A suggestion... (http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Dummies-Richard-J-Wagner/dp/0764544829/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t)
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516A8%2BxCAuL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

wilbur
03-03-2009, 07:37 PM
You know, if I were to discuss rocket science with my 11 year old, she would go read a book about rocket science...(and not one that argues that rocket science does not exist and/or has been disproven) - and then she would come back to me with some facts to back her viewpoint. Of course, my 11 year old is a smart kid.

Your entire post was hogwash, not just the incorrect ASSumptions about God. Seriously, lay down your philosophy books and go read a textbook about theology (not one that argues that God doesn't exist and/or has been disproven.) Learn SOMETHING about the subject!

Well.. theologians are the laughing stock of every other learned person in the world... they are cranks and quacks. You might as well tell me to go read a respected expert on star trek to learn about warp drives before I claim they are fantasy.

But.. be that as it may, I have listened too and read many of the words of several religious philosophers that put out some commendable and creative arguments.. such as Alvin Plantigna (really considered the premiere religious philosopher in the world right now), CS Lewis, and William Lane Craig (certainly the lesser of the three).

FlaGator
03-03-2009, 07:39 PM
But we can prove every core claim of a religion false, nonsensical or unjustifiable. That is all that is needed. Furthermore, the theist must also be able to move beyond the position that God is simply one interesting possibility among many different possibilities... to a position where God is the only and absolute truth.

You can? Prove to me that Christ didn't rise from the dead. Prove to me that God didn't create reality as we know it. Prove to me that the Bible isn't the word of God? It's about as nonsensical as believing that someone would allow himself to be executed instead of confessing a lie. Let's see your proof. If you can't provide any then you should withdrawal your statement.



Science may raise more questions as things are learned, but the key difference is that science doesn't claim to have certain, absolute truth from the outset. The scientist is free to discard what he previously thought he knew. The theist has to justify why his absolute truth is still absolute truth despite their claims not meeting even the bare minimum for contemporary standards of evidence. This is why it gets harder for the apologist.... in a sphere that demands evidence.. the apologist must continually justify why he doesn't need evidence for his claims... or at least not the same type of evidence or to the same degree as other scientific questions... or why evidence against his claims really isnt evidence. And as the claims start to look more and more suspect, he must still rationalize in increasingly convoluted ways.


Religion didn't claim to have all the answers at the start either. You are confusing a process that took 3000 years with what theology claims today. Review theology. Much that his man inferred is discarded when other data is factored in. I am an apologist and I revel in the new information because every new scientific fact further reinforces my position. Most all modern apologists will agree with this statement. The problem doesn't lie with the apologists; it is with the atheists who refuse to accept a rational view of reality. Even the ancients like Plato and Aristotle deduced the existence of a creator from logic, rational thought and clues from nature. The deeper science looks the more evidence of design it finds. You can refuse to believe this but it doesn't change facts.



Creationists comically escape this problem by asserting that the literal truth of scripture must be presumed without any justification what-so-ever... and anything that appears to be contrary is just OUR mistaken interpretation of reality.



Not in and of it self... evil and needless suffering simply arent incompatible with the absence of a omni-benevolent, omni* capable creator. One could even say those things are compatible with a God that is imperfect, very powerful but not omni* capable, or of limited knowledge... or maybe even is partly evil.. but those options arent available to most theists.

Evil is not incompatible with an omnipotent God when you consider that Gods interference with the actions of man. Man does evil acts and God allows it because to do otherwise would turn man in to automatons with no free choice. If you knew for a fact that God existed and with all certainty you would go to hell for disobeying him you would do so, not because you freely choose to but because you are want to avoid hell. I don't worship God for fear of hell. I worship God because it is in my heart to love him and to do my best to do what he asks.

Also you prove my point about the humanizing of God that atheists do. You can only come to terms with allowing evil in the world by attributing human attributes to him. You are incapable of understanding that there is a larger picture that you are not aware of. To quote God himself when speaking to Isaiah


“‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’”




Well, its impossible to discuss the God of classical theism in any way without assuming He has human characteristics... its built into it at its core... especially Christianity.

Why? I have little problem doing it. The above quote from Isaiah 55:8-9 tells us we are not to view God as human. The purpose of the second commandment is to keep us from creating false images of God because He is beyond our ability to understand much less conceiving in visual form. My image of God is not really an image but a concept. When you remove the human characteristics from God it becomes possible to grasp the fact that He is greater than we can know.

I think you use this as an excuse to justify the why atheists don't win more adherents. China which has basically outlawed religion is one of the fastest growing segments of Christianity. When communism fell in Russia tens of millions of people who were told there is not God for their whole life’s started worshipping openly. Imagine that, a whole country of believers that even the promise of imprisonment and death couldn't convert to atheism.

FlaGator
03-03-2009, 07:47 PM
Well.. theologians are the laughing stock of every other learned person in the world... they are cranks and quacks. You might as well tell me to go read a respected expert on star trek to learn about warp drives before I claim they are fantasy.

But.. be that as it may, I have listened too and read many of the words of several religious philosophers that put out some commendable and creative arguments.. such as Alvin Plantigna (really considered the premiere religious philosopher in the world right now), CS Lewis, and William Lane Craig (certainly the lesser of the three).

That is total bullshit and you know it. Why do some of the most prestigious universities in the world have theological degrees up to and including PhDs? The only ones who laugh at theologists are atheists who laugh because they have no answers the can prove. Frances Collins doesn't think that they are cranks, Neither do Paul Davies and Max Plank

You really destroy your credibility with baseless statements like this.

FlaGator
03-03-2009, 07:52 PM
Oh, one of you posts shows that I edited it. I accidentally opened it up in edit mode and then accidentally hit the save button instead of cancel. Please review to assure yourself that I didn't change anything.

Also, I think you shouldn't adhere to the studies of Edward Larson to closely. They have been debunked over the years.

Rebel Yell
03-04-2009, 09:17 AM
I didn't mean that offensively to anyone, I've just never heard of them.

No biggie.:D

Rebel Yell
03-04-2009, 09:26 AM
I found Wilbur's hero. Rick and Bubba was recapping the debate this morning, and they said Lennox brought up the "end game" for atheism. This made Hitchens back off. Peter Singer is the new evangelical atheist on the scene. He says that his own daughter is no more important to him than a rat. If there is no God, people are not special and deserve to be treated no better then a mouse. Hitchens wouldn't go down that road, understandably, since he has children of his own. But, to be a true atheist, you have to think logically. If we are not held up above all creation, then a human life is no different than that of an animal.

wilbur
03-04-2009, 11:50 AM
I found Wilbur's hero. Rick and Bubba was recapping the debate this morning, and they said Lennox brought up the "end game" for atheism. This made Hitchens back off. Peter Singer is the new evangelical atheist on the scene. He says that his own daughter is no more important to him than a rat. If there is no God, people are not special and deserve to be treated no better then a mouse. Hitchens wouldn't go down that road, understandably, since he has children of his own.

Its quite an outrageous misrepresentation say Peter Singer 'lowers' the status of humans that of the animals. He's is one of the thinkers behind animal rights... his philosophy claims the exact opposite and raises the status of animals (beings with capacities and interests) to nearly equal (or sometimes totally equal) to that of humans.

That is quite a universe apart from what I'm sure what whoever was saying that stuff was trying to imply.. probably that he believes nothing matters and any act upon any being is ethical no matter how cruel etc etc.. heck its probably evolutions fault in there somewhere too... cuz it says we're related to monkies. I bet dollars to donuts Singer has never compared his daughter to a rat.. sounds completely made up (but typical of the kind of story a fundie would concoct when discussing a secular philsophy).

The routine usually goes something like this:
1. Fundie reads that evolution says we are related to monkeys and all life.
2. Funde interprets that in his head as 'evolution says human beings are NO BETTER than monkeys'.
3. Fundie claims scientists like Dawkins actually SAY we are NO BETTER than monkeys... and since thats the case, there's nothing to stop us from throwing feces at each other, raping women, and going on murderous rampages.

What has happened here appears to be:
1. Fundie reads that singer argues for animal rights.
2. Fundie interprets the animal rights argument, in his head, that Singer must BELIEVE his daughter is no more important to him that a rat.
3. Fundie claims Singer HAS SAID his daughter is no more important to him that a rat. Gosh, what an evil guy! Damn atheists!

Not that I really agree all the way with what I know of Singer's ethical philosophies... he does take animal rights to the extreme.. but you are being mislead as to how his philosophy functions.


But, to be a true atheist, you have to think logically. If we are not held up above all creation, then a human life is no different than that of an animal.

The only logical and justified conclusion of atheism is that religion is probably false. Any belief beyond that is a product of other philosophies. Rick and Bubba dont seem to be able to connect the dots there.

Rebel Yell
03-04-2009, 12:33 PM
The only logical and justified conclusion of atheism is that religion is probably false. Any belief beyond that is a product of other philosophies. Rick and Bubba dont seem to be able to connect the dots there.

So believing there isn't a God watching over and judging us has no bearing on the beliefs that Singer has?

Hitchens' problem with God is that he don't want to live under a dictator, his words. So, rather than defy God, He just decided that he doesn't exist. That's like the people of Cuba deciding they don't believe in Castro.

wilbur
03-04-2009, 12:55 PM
So believing there isn't a God watching over and judging us has no bearing on the beliefs that Singer has?

I don't think anyone but me has even approached an accurate representation of what Singer believes, so I'm not sure in what way you think god belief/non-belief motivates or affects them.

He's got papers all over the web. Again, like other secular philosophers, he endeavors to justify WHY we SHOULD behave ethically and what those ethics should be.... far from how I surmise he was portrayed.... probably as somehow a moral relativist or completely amoral, or nihilistic and valueless etc.



Hitchens' problem with God is that he don't want to live under a dictator, his words. So, rather than defy God, He just decided that he doesn't exist. That's like the people of Cuba deciding they don't believe in Castro.

Hitchens rightly challenges the almost always unchallenged assumption that the God of classical theism is a desirable, wonderful character. If any other being demanded of us what that God does... we would rightly consider them totalitarian and evil. Its rather quite silly that we invent a being called God, and say "Its OK when He does it".

But its easy to twist what Hitchens says in such a way that it paints him as a "believer in denial"... truly believing that God exists, but simply denying him because he doesnt like the rules. This common fallacy seems to make theists feel better for some reason. Its easy to not want to obey all the often irrational rules of various theisms, AND honestly believe their claims of God are false as well. Conversely, there are many atheists who would prefer there was an afterlife or some all powerful father archetype in the sky... but still believe it is false.

Edit: Damn proof reading is going to well today.... not..

MrsSmith
03-04-2009, 06:54 PM
Well.. theologians are the laughing stock of every other learned person in the world... they are cranks and quacks. You might as well tell me to go read a respected expert on star trek to learn about warp drives before I claim they are fantasy.

But.. be that as it may, I have listened too and read many of the words of several religious philosophers that put out some commendable and creative arguments.. such as Alvin Plantigna (really considered the premiere religious philosopher in the world right now), CS Lewis, and William Lane Craig (certainly the lesser of the three).

Then why is it your every "religious" post just screams of ignorance? Did you retain nothing of what you read? :rolleyes: If you want to come across as an intelligent person, you really need to learn the subject.

Of course, it must be difficult to learn a subject that, in your "learned" opinion is a laughing stock...so why do you then insist on endlessly posting in threads about the subject that you consider so ridiculous? It's really pathetic...like you just love bragging on your complete lack of education. :confused:

wilbur
03-06-2009, 11:59 AM
Then why is it your every "religious" post just screams of ignorance? Did you retain nothing of what you read? :rolleyes: If you want to come across as an intelligent person, you really need to learn the subject.


I have a feeling, "coming across as an intelligent person" simply means accepting Christianity or religion on your terms. No thanks.

It's Hitchens ignorant and uneducated when he says the God of Christianity is a totalitarian dictator from whom there is no appeal, and that that notion runs contrary to ideas of justice that we all consider to be good? Or does he perceive Christianity in a way that Christians won't allow themselves too... because to do so would be apostasy?

FlaGator
03-06-2009, 12:13 PM
I have a feeling, "coming across as an intelligent person" simply means accepting Christianity or religion on your terms. No thanks.

It's Hitchens ignorant and uneducated when he says the God of Christianity is a totalitarian dictator from whom there is no appeal, and that that notion runs contrary to ideas of justice that we all consider to be good? Or does he perceive Christianity in a way that Christians won't allow themselves too... because to do so would be apostasy?

The arguments from Hitchens and professional atheists in general show that they can not deal with a God that is beyond their ability to picture so they create an image of God that is false and then explain way this false image. This tolatitarian dictator argument for example is weak. Since you are allowed by God to do anything you choose and to accept or reject him and live a life of your choosing then how is that being a dictator. How is it being unjust or evil to let things happen you your life as the will with no interference from Him? Because atheists can't construct a even a murky picture of character of God they are unable to understand His actions and inactions.

wilbur
03-06-2009, 01:08 PM
The arguments from Hitchens and professional atheists in general show that they can not deal with a God that is beyond their ability to picture so they create an image of God that is false and then explain way this false image.

If God is "beyond comprehension" then how can you claim to know that your image is any truer than what Hitchens describes? This only comes up when someone reaches conclusions about God (as described and written about in the Bible) that make theists uncomfortable. If we say God is good, wonderful, generous, all powerful, I doubt you will be saying you can't know that because He's beyond comprehension.

This is really no different than the age ol pastime of thanking God for every good thing that happens, then when something bad comes along, claiming that "he works in mysterious ways".



This tolatitarian dictator argument for example is weak. Since you are allowed by God to do anything you choose and to accept or reject him and live a life of your choosing then how is that being a dictator. How is it being unjust or evil to let things happen you your life as the will with no interference from Him? Because atheists can't construct a even a murky picture of character of God they are unable to understand His actions and inactions.

You can "choose" to violate the law under a totalitarian regime as well. You just get punished.. and are at mercy of the arbitrary whims of your dictator. But you might say we are punished under any form of government for violating the law. This is true... but in just forms of government, one can either leave, or attempt to change the laws which one feels are unjust.

Hitchens, with his totalitarian bit, paints Yahweh truer brush than any Christian ever has.