Christianity is false and immoral. (Hitchens)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,225
5,801
126
Humanity didn't put humanities sins on Jesus, God/Jesus did as an undeserved gift. Christ was offered by God, through God, AS God via his infinite loving grace. It is the prerogative of the wronged(God) to issue forgiveness of, and to, the wrongdoers(Humanity). Hitchens vicarious redemption via human sacrifice claim is only half true and purposely interpreted negatively. Namely, its demonstratively not Christian doctrine, nor has it ever been, that humanity decided the terms of its vicarious redemption and arbitrarily put them on some "eccentric preacher", crucified him, washed their hands and called it a day.

Hitchens, because he doesn't believe in Christian doctrine and theology, purposely leaves out fundamental aspects of Christian claims allowing him to build a straw-man par excellence. It's akin to attempting to disprove the Pythagorean theorem by changing the operator and removing a few exponents, then claiming how stupid and false it is.

Incorrect
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
You said "absolutely no consequence whatsoever" to you answering "yes" to the question 'do people need god as a crutch' if god doesn't exist.
Oh that's what you mean.
It IS of no consequence to the universe either way.
It is of consequence to people, but once you're dead, that doesn't matter any more. Therefor, you should do whatever the heck you want to this life because that's all you get and better make the most of it.

How do you distinguish and separate all of that from a construct that exists only in your mind?
Yes you are right. It IS a construct that exists within the mind, however, inside the world of "ok there is a God, what now?" we are able to rely on our senses and ability to reason and use logic, because
1. logic is objectively good, and
2. all good things (logic, reason, love, taste, smell, etc.) come from above. In other words, because we can rely on God (he is infinitely trust-able), we can rely on the things he's given us, because he told us that we were made in his image.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,225
5,801
126
As stated, belief is not a prerequisite for a religion. A religion is a set of ideas and ideals. That's atheism.

Atheism is the idea that a god does not exist. Atheists hold the ideals that anyone who doesn't agree with them are morons.

I'm not seeing a difference.

You can play with semantics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that atheism plays in society as much like a religion as any other organized religion does. The fact that it isn't organized into a "church" is entirely incidental.

Incorrect
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Consequences to one's freedom and happiness. We're social beings; we don't do well in isolation, which is what one would soon have if the "urge to kill" was acted upon.

yeah, but you're going to die anyways, so who cares how you spent your time? Doesn't matter in the end.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Oh that's what you mean.
It IS of no consequence to the universe either way.
It is of consequence to people, but once you're dead, that doesn't matter any more. Therefor, you should do whatever the heck you want to this life because that's all you get and better make the most of it.


Yes you are right. It IS a construct that exists within the mind, however, inside the world of "ok there is a God, what now?" we are able to rely on our senses and ability to reason and use logic, because
1. logic is objectively good, and
2. all good things (logic, reason, love, taste, smell, etc.) come from above. In other words, because we can rely on God (he is infinitely trust-able), we can rely on the things he's given us, because he told us that we were made in his image.

Logic isn't good. Logic isn't bad. Logic is just logic. God didn't give us logic.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Humanity didn't put humanities sins on Jesus, God/Jesus did as an undeserved gift. Christ was offered by God, through God, AS God via his infinite loving grace. It is the prerogative of the wronged(God) to issue forgiveness of, and to, the wrongdoers(Humanity). Hitchens vicarious redemption via human sacrifice claim is only half true and purposely interpreted negatively. Namely, its demonstratively not Christian doctrine, nor has it ever been, that humanity decided the terms of its vicarious redemption and arbitrarily put them on some "eccentric preacher", crucified him, washed their hands and called it a day.

Hitchens, because he doesn't believe in Christian doctrine and theology, purposely leaves out fundamental aspects of Christian claims allowing him to build a straw-man par excellence. It's akin to attempting to disprove the Pythagorean theorem by changing the operator and removing a few exponents, then claiming how stupid and false it is.

A system of control; of carrots and sticks.. like any other.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
yeah, but you're going to die anyways, so who cares how you spent your time? Doesn't matter in the end.

EMPATHY! Can't you Empathise?! You should care, you should have Empathy for someone elses life?! If you don't you may be a sociopath.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
That's how the violently insane and deranged may think, but the rest of us value our lives and our freedom.

Exactly this. Only Psychopaths and Sociopaths are not able to empathise. Morality doesn't apply in these peoples minds. They are Ill.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
That's how the violently insane and deranged may think, but the rest of us value our lives and our freedom.

yup, and illogically so.
Without God, we have the feeling of empathy,
but no logic for it.

Just some general "good for advancement of society" which is not universally important.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,225
5,801
126
your posts where you just say "incorrect" are boring :(

Your ridiculous Posts where you've made the same stupid arguments infinite times before and have had things explained to you by many Posters down to the nitty gritty details, such as what "Theory" means, are much more boring.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Exactly this. Only Psychopaths and Sociopaths are not able to empathise. Morality doesn't apply in these peoples minds. They are Ill.

People that rely on empathy are ill in the "logic" sector of their brain, because if they were thinking with Logic, they would realize that empathy is relative and not objectively verifiable, thus they shouldn't listen to it.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Oh that's what you mean.
It IS of no consequence to the universe either way.
It is of consequence to people, but once you're dead, that doesn't matter any more. Therefor, you should do whatever the heck you want to this life because that's all you get and better make the most of it.

Yes, it is of consequence to people... and we value the opinions and feelings of others; our social structures depend on that. Only the violently insane and deranged few don't care about their own life or how their life (or death) will impact others.

Yes you are right. It IS a construct that exists within the mind, however, inside the world of "ok there is a God, what now?" we are able to rely on our senses and ability to reason and use logic, because
1. logic is objectively good, and
2. all good things (logic, reason, love, taste, smell, etc.) come from above. In other words, because we can rely on God (he is infinitely trust-able), we can rely on the things he's given us, because he told us that we were made in his image.

Why must it be within that "world"?
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Your ridiculous Posts where you've made the same stupid arguments infinite times before and have had things explained to you by many Posters down to the nitty gritty details, such as what "Theory" means, are much more boring.

if someone could explain to me with LOGICAL objectivity, and without using terms or feelings like "empathy", why any random person SHOULDN'T go kill whoever they want, then maybe I would quieten down.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
People that rely on empathy are ill in the "logic" sector of their brain, because if they were thinking with Logic, they would realize that empathy is relative and not objectively verifiable, thus they shouldn't listen to it.

so in order to rationalise the two you have to take a logical stance towards morality and decide for your self using logic, realise that empathy is fallible so reason what is empathy, what would objective empathy look like and create a morality system based on this.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
yup, and illogically so.
Without God, we have the feeling of empathy,
but no logic for it.

Is logic for it required?

Just some general "good for advancement of society" which is not universally important.

That would not seem to me to be as omnipresent as a more selfish sense of "good for my own happiness".
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
if someone could explain to me with LOGICAL objectivity, and without using terms or feelings like "empathy", why any random person SHOULDN'T go kill whoever they want, then maybe I would quieten down.

OK I'll have a crack at it.

Life deserves respect. The premise for this is that I know based on observation that people live and people experience the world. I live and experience the world. My life is mine and mine a lone. I am free to do with it what I want, I am free to live my life how I see fit. If someone kills me they are depriving me of my right to life. This is something that is illogical. It removes my capacity to reason or to experience unless there is a greater logic that is being preserved by ending my life then there is no logic to doing it. As such the same can be applied to others lives, unless a greater need for logic is being met. I cannot logically kill a person.

This is just a logical attempt to explain empathy.

Empathy is the thought that I don't want this to happen to me, so he doesn't want it either. <--- Logical
 
Last edited:

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
It seems to me that christians are only able to think about what is best for them, well if I do this god will be happy with me :D, If I kill that guy he'll be mad, for some reason christians think that unless they are getting a reward they will fuck everyone up for no reason.

"Hey Daddy, give me some chocolate every day so I'm good."
"Sorry son Daddy died and we have no more chocolate"
"Ok cool, I'm going raping anyone coming?"
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Yes, it is of consequence to people... and we value the opinions and feelings of others; our social structures depend on that. Only the violently insane and deranged few don't care about their own life or how their life (or death) will impact others.
I agree only the violently insane don't care. But thus far your societal reasons that the killer does not care about, are not objectively verifiable reasons that he should change his behavior.



Why must it be within that "world"?
Since we observe that we have to make use of the laws of logic in order to prove the existence of logic, we are required to either 1. assume something or 2. recognize no meaning to anything.
Since everyone is willing to assume that empathy is objectively good, I only ask that they be fair and try stepping inside the assumption that God is objective good.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,225
5,801
126
if someone could explain to me with LOGICAL objectivity, and without using terms or feelings like "empathy", why any random person SHOULDN'T go kill whoever they want, then maybe I would quieten down.


empathy

- 6 dictionary results
.shd_hdr1 { width: 100%; }.sep_top1 { position: relative; }.citesourceseperator { border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(228, 228, 228); margin-top: 15px; margin-bottom: 7px; }.sep_top1 table { margin-top: -2px; margin-bottom: -3px; }.results_content ul, .results_content ol { margin-bottom: -3px; }.LImg { background-image: url("http://sp2.dictionary.com/en/i/dictionary/AddThis_v2/sprite_icons.png"); }.Lsentnce { display: block; margin-top: 14px; } em·pa·thy

&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;&#603;m
thinsp.png
p&#601;
thinsp.png
&#952;i/ Show Spelled[em-puh-thee] Show IPA
–noun 1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.









=======================