How many of you are atheists?

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Of all Hitchen's debates did he ever argue with somebody outside of an organised religion? This approach allowed him to construct a straw man that arguing against recognised Gods is on par with arguing against the vague god concept, that can never be debunked.

It is possible that this "god" exists but we have no way of knowing what it is, energy, force etc. The architect of the universe operating and overseeing the order of the universe unbeknownst to us. But we have no meaningful way of expressing this like Catholics do with their God and or Muslims etc. You can't worship the potential existence of the vaguest of ideas, and applying your own fictional interpretation to that concept like Deepak Chopra does or like the gods worshipped by people of established religions, are interpreted by theologians. It is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, such a "god" could exist but without such evidence you assume he doesn't. It doesn't justify certainty that no god exists but some Atheists still do like to think they are sure it doesn't because it is a comforting thought. It is still a bit hypocritical, but I suppose if you don't behave in the same manner as Christopher Hitchens then it is alright.

The argument always seems to be big bang vs god and afterlife, i think the arrogance of man is that we presume if a god or creator exists that means we are somehow special and end up at the pearly gates. an argument towards a creator of the universe but we all die and that is it has just as much validity, the universe could have been created by a god(as a term) but it doesn't mean it ends well for us as human beings

I cannot think of one good reason why a god in terms of the bible wouldn't present himself to us[/quote

The god in terms of the bible is a personification of an idea, there is a great conflict amongst monotheism in that it is blasphemy to picture god in the human form, but then at the same time the bible stories don't work unless you ascribe human emotions to him. If he is jealous, spiteful and egotistical the he isn't a supreme being. You wouldn't be insecure of yourself if you were the creator of the universe and all powerful would you? To me it seems more likely that such a god would behave more through logic and in a pretty much sociopathic manner rather than be driven by human emotions- After all it is these emotions, feelings, thoughts etc that render us imperfect and inevitable sinners.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Of all Hitchen's debates did he ever argue with somebody outside of an organised religion? This approach allowed him to construct a straw man that arguing against recognised Gods is on par with arguing against the vague god concept, that can never be debunked.

From memory, most of Hitchens' debates were on the effects of religion, rather than the question of god. But the reality is that the vague god concept isn't a debate. There's no-one that fiercely believes in a vague concept of a god that created the conditions that caused the big bang. There might be some that accept it as a possibility, but ultimately know that it's largely conjecture. What you get instead is people strategically arguing for the vague god concept, when in reality, they believe in and promote God with a capital G. So Hitchens is quite right to highlight this intellectual dishonesty in a debate.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Hitchens is superb at pointing at the hypocrisy & the irrational so called acts that come from "heaven".[/quote

Hitchens was a hedonistic old tart who used to rent his arse to tories. It is very easy to debate with the religious, he was in his element, Hitchens used rhetoric though to colour his argument. He didn't actually listen to what his opponents actually had to say (though most of them had well worn apologetics and logical fallacy arguments such as Hitler-Stalin-in the name of atheism etc. If he had actually
debated with somebody who pointed out that god could exist as Skashion does then he would have been stumped. But then those kind of debates just don't happen.

Your alter ego also liked Hitchens...

You mean my housemate?

Yeah we've both read his book. I disagree entirely with Hitchens on Irag & politics but he makes some decent points against religion.

I used to like Hitchens, he was entertaining when he was in his element, but his debate with religion was just to satisfy his ego and elevate him to an intellectual level that he wasn't going to reach another way. The politics of Hitchens is essentially what turned me off, this is more of an intellectually demanding sphere and he took the easy option, he justified war on behalf of anti-theism or anti fundamentalism in the same manner that the Taliban justify their war or Al-Qaeda their terrorism. He was a grade A arsehole who spun the illusion that religion poisons everything but then at the same time as taking the moral high ground justified military imperialism in which many innocents needlessly lost their lives.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The argument always seems to be big bang vs god and afterlife, i think the arrogance of man is that we presume if a god or creator exists that means we are somehow special and end up at the pearly gates. an argument towards a creator of the universe but we all die and that is it has just as much validity, the universe could have been created by a god(as a term) but it doesn't mean it ends well for us as human beings

The issue with humans is that we automatically assume a purpose in everything. Take the "fine tuning" arguments, for example. If the laws of physics were slightly different, the universe (and most importantly us) wouldn't be here. What of it? That's only an issue if you start with the view that we are in some way special and the universe was created for our benefit or gives a shit that we exist.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Of all Hitchen's debates did he ever argue with somebody outside of an organised religion? This approach allowed him to construct a straw man that arguing against recognised Gods is on par with arguing against the vague god concept, that can never be debunked.

From memory, most of Hitchens' debates were on the effects of religion, rather than the question of god. But the reality is that the vague god concept isn't a debate. There's no-one that fiercely believes in a vague concept of a god that created the conditions that caused the big bang. There might be some that accept it as a possibility, but ultimately know that it's largely conjecture. What you get instead is people strategically arguing for the vague god concept, when in reality, they believe in and promote God with a capital G. So Hitchens is quite right to highlight this intellectual dishonesty in a debate.

Yeah I understand that point, the vagueness is what kills the allure of such an idea, despite the idea itself remaining unwounded. He did debate the idea of god several times, one time at least with his brother.

 

[Ban-jani]

Hitchens is superb at pointing at the hypocrisy & the irrational so called acts that come from "heaven".[/quote

Hitchens was a hedonistic old tart who used to rent his arse to tories. It is very easy to debate with the religious, he was in his element, Hitchens used rhetoric though to colour his argument. He didn't actually listen to what his opponents actually had to say (though most of them had well worn apologetics and logical fallacy arguments such as Hitler-Stalin-in the name of atheism etc. If he had actually
debated with somebody who pointed out that god could exist as Skashion does then he would have been stumped. But then those kind of debates just don't happen.

Your alter ego also liked Hitchens...

You mean my housemate?

Yeah we've both read his book. I disagree entirely with Hitchens on Irag & politics but he makes some decent points against religion.

I used to like Hitchens, he was entertaining when he was in his element, but his debate with religion was just to satisfy his ego and elevate him to an intellectual level that he wasn't going to reach another way. The politics of Hitchens is essentially what turned me off, this is more of an intellectually demanding sphere and he took the easy option, he justified war on behalf of anti-theism or anti fundamentalism in the same manner that the Taliban justify their war or Al-Qaeda their terrorism. He was a grade A arsehole who spun the illusion that religion poisons everything but then at the same time as taking the moral high ground justified military imperialism in which many innocents needlessly lost their lives.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just like his points on God's so called intentions etc.

 

[Damocles]

What is fine tuning?

If I think he's talking about what I think he's talking about then fine tuning is the idea that life could not have arisen if you change certain Universal constants to a different value.

The problem I have with this is that it is somewhat self-defeating. Life couldn't have arisen under any other circumstances so to point at those laws is circular logic. Life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists. Etc.

I might have gotten his idea of fine tuning wrong but to me it isn't something that needs to be addressed.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

You mean my housemate?

Yeah we've both read his book. I disagree entirely with Hitchens on Irag & politics but he makes some decent points against religion.

I used to like Hitchens, he was entertaining when he was in his element, but his debate with religion was just to satisfy his ego and elevate him to an intellectual level that he wasn't going to reach another way. The politics of Hitchens is essentially what turned me off, this is more of an intellectually demanding sphere and he took the easy option, he justified war on behalf of anti-theism or anti fundamentalism in the same manner that the Taliban justify their war or Al-Qaeda their terrorism. He was a grade A arsehole who spun the illusion that religion poisons everything but then at the same time as taking the moral high ground justified military imperialism in which many innocents needlessly lost their lives.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just like his points on God's so called intentions etc.

I once saw a youtube comment with the backhanded compliment(after the insult of something along the lines of warmonger or neo-con) "he could debate religious people though". That is how we should view Hitchens. He was entertaining, he wrote a good rant, he was a great orator and skilled debater (whether he used clean or dirty tricks) but he debated with people who had circular arguments and arguments formed in ignorance to science or even a good level of education in some instances. Why should we heap praise on him for that? For arguing with a group of selected idiots, or the brainwashed, and treading well worn ground in which their belief in god was debunked? He wasn't original, but he had his own style.

 

[hilts]

What is fine tuning?

If I think he's talking about what I think he's talking about then fine tuning is the idea that life could not have arisen if you change certain Universal constants to a different value.

The problem I have with this is that it is somewhat self-defeating. Life couldn't have arisen under any other circumstances so to point at those laws is circular logic. Life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists. Etc.

I might have gotten his idea of fine tuning wrong but to me it isn't something that needs to be addressed.

So a bit like the chances of me being here are a billion to one so it shouldn't happen but then again it must happen to someone and whoever it is would think it shouldn't happen, like winning the lottery

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

What is fine tuning?

If I think he's talking about what I think he's talking about then fine tuning is the idea that life could not have arisen if you change certain Universal constants to a different value.

The problem I have with this is that it is somewhat self-defeating. Life couldn't have arisen under any other circumstances so to point at those laws is circular logic. Life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists. Etc.

I might have gotten his idea of fine tuning wrong but to me it isn't something that needs to be addressed.

So a bit like the chances of me being here are a billion to one so it shouldn't happen but then again it must happen to someone and whoever it is would think it shouldn't happen, like winning the lottery

Cognitive bias would kick in and you would probably think it came about by luck, or fate or divine intervention, it shouldn't happen but it did so I'm special-I had assistance. That is the analogy anyway.