Christianity is false and immoral. (Hitchens)

[HAL9000]

Happiness is required for survival. Survival is required because it is a biological imperative; it is a defining attribute of life.

This biological imperative is the reason we are here still. That is all.

 

[HAL9000]

so if you haven't observed it everywhere, you are required to admit that he *might* exist there. You have to observe it first before you can conclude that he doesn't exist in that region of space. If you haven't observed it, and yet you conclude something, then you're breaching the scientific method.

No because the CONCEPT is false. God by definition doesn't exist, because the Concept is wrong as a result GOD CANNOT EXIST, because there is no such thing as god.

Philosophy, the father of science

 

[soccerballtux]

Happiness is required for survival. Survival is required because it is a biological imperative; it is a defining attribute of life.

and why should life continue to live?
All we can do is observe that it does

if we can't explain why it should continue to live, then that is what has become our assumption:

We assume it should continue to live,
1. therefor if it needs to survive it needs to be happy,
2. therefor if it needs to be happy it probably wants a functioning, preferably low-violence society,
3. therefor if it wants a functioning, low violence society it probably wants laws that promote its survival,
4. therefor we have a law that says "do not murder"

So we all assume something, somewhere, at which point we should find an assumption that gives life the most reason to live. I think that works out best if it's God, the rest seem more illogical when viewed from inside the assumption/granting the assumption.

 

[HAL9000]

and why should life continue to live?
All we can do is observe that it does

if we can't explain why it should continue to live, then that is what has become our assumption:

We assume it should continue to live,
1. therefor if it needs to survive it needs to be happy,
2. therefor if it needs to be happy it probably wants a functioning, preferably low-violence society,
3. therefor if it wants a functioning, low violence society it probably wants laws that promote its survival,
4. therefor we have a law that says "do not murder"

So we all assume something, somewhere, at which point we should find an assumption that gives life a reason to live.

There is no should there is no why, there is only how. And the fact that we are here. You assume some greater meaning to it all when logically there is none. This is your problem

We don't assume.

 

[soccerballtux]

No because the CONCEPT is false. God by definition doesn't exist, because the Concept is wrong as a result GOD CANNOT EXIST, because there is no such thing as god.

Philosophy, the father of science

nope, not allowed, you have to observe everywhere first. Even then he might just be invisible and you can't see him.

 

[HAL9000]

nope, not allowed, you have to observe everywhere first. Even then he might just be invisible and you can't see him.

HE can't exists because HE is a logically contradictory concept. Even if there is a god, it's not a christian god because the christian definition is wrong.

Assuming I find all al powerful being that created the earth it wouldnt be a christian god.

Bud aside from this why would you believe in something there is no proof for?! There is no proof for unicorns do you believe in them?

 

[zsdersw]

and why should life continue to live?
All we can do is observe that it does

if we can't explain why it should continue to live, then that is what has become our assumption:

We assume it should continue to live,
1. therefor if it needs to survive it needs to be happy,
2. therefor if it needs to be happy it probably wants a functioning, preferably low-violence society,
3. therefor if it wants a functioning, low violence society it probably wants laws that promote its survival,
4. therefor we have a law that says "do not murder"

So we all assume something, somewhere, at which point we should find an assumption that gives life the most reason to live. I think that works out best if it's God, the rest seem more illogical when viewed from inside the assumption/granting the assumption.

Your explanation of the god/humanity relationship.. as that of a father and son.. being a construct of the mind is no more or less relevant and significant a reason for life to continue as any other.

 

[soccerballtux]

There is no should there is no why, there is only how. And the fact that we are here.

if there is no SHOULD or WHY, then you have no reason to find fault
with the serial killer murdering people,
or the rapist raping.
After all, it's not like he SHOULD live peaceably or SHOULDN'T listen to his urges to kill.

You assume some greater meaning to it all when logically there is none.

I may assume some greater meaning, but at least that greater meaning gives me reason WHY the serial killer SHOULD act the way I want him to.

 

[HAL9000]

if there is no SHOULD or WHY, then you have no reason to find fault
with the serial killer murdering people,
or the rapist raping.
After all, it's not like he SHOULD live peaceably or SHOULDN'T listen to his urges to kill.



I may assume some greater meaning, but at least that greater meaning gives me reason WHY the serial killer SHOULD act the way I want him to.

I'm saying there is no meaning to life and existence I'm not saying there is no morality, morality is a human construct that answers why people do things and stops them from doing it. There is why and should for morality but not for existence.

 

[soccerballtux]

Your explanation of the god/humanity relationship.. as that of a father and son.. being a construct of the mind is no more or less relevant and significant a reason for life to continue as any other.

So since we all have to assume something to have meaning, else we can't offer any "shouldn't" to a serial killer, as neckarb admitted himself.

Then lets look at the assumptions:
inside of the assumption of God, a lot of things make sense.
Inside the assumption that life has meaning, it doesn't magically become clear HOW that works other than, well, we assumed it, so it does.

Inside the assumption of God, it becomes clear how it has meaning, because He is the Life.
Now, we could ascribe the life with meaning inside that assumption of life, but we still won't have a reason for that meaning.

However, I imagine if one truly believes in life, and Jesus is THE Life, then maybe that's actually believing in Jesus? Idk.

 

[soccerballtux]

I'm saying there is no meaning to life and existence

if there's no meaning to life and existence, then why did evolution evolve morality?

or perhaps there's no why to that either, and just how.

Please understand, I never said to you "there is no morality", because it's clear we see it exhibited all over the place.

All I've been saying this whole time, is that there is no SHOULD or WHY to morality since life and existence is meaningless.
Since there is no should or why, it's irrational to live one's life under the rules of said morality.
You can do it if you like, but it's irrational to hang one's decisions on it.

and it's especially illogical to expect a serial killer to live his life under its rules for any reason other than force, too.

 

[HAL9000]

So since we all have to assume something to have meaning, else we can't offer any "shouldn't" to a serial killer, as neckarb admitted himself.

Then lets look at the assumptions:
inside of the assumption of God, a lot of things make sense.
Inside the assumption that life has meaning, it doesn't magically become clear HOW that works other than, well, we assumed it, so it does. You are assigning meaning, not finding meaning

Inside the assumption of God, it becomes clear how it has meaning, because He is the Life.You are assigning meaning there is no meaning
Now, we could ascribe the life with meaning inside that assumption of life, but we still won't have a reason for that meaning.You are assigning meaning, not finding meaning

However, I imagine if one truly believes in life, and Jesus is THE Life, then maybe that's actually believing in Jesus? Idk. Jesus isn't the life. So this point is wrong

Just because god enables you to assign meaning to things where there is no meaning, doesn't mean that there is meaning or that god exists. It doesn't, there isn't.

 

[HAL9000]

if there's no meaning to life and existence, then why did evolution evolve morality?

or perhaps there's no why to that either, and just how.

Evolution didin't evolve morality we created morality using logic.

There is a should or why to morality that is all that morality concerns itself with. We assign the should and the why to morality based on logic.

 

[soccerballtux]

Evolution didin't evolve morality we created morality using logic.

edited my previous post, see that

 

[HAL9000]

edited my previous post, see that

Edited mine too.

 

[zsdersw]

So since we all have to assume something to have meaning, else we can't offer any "shouldn't" to a serial killer, as neckarb admitted himself.

Your use of a "serial killer" is conspicuous. The following are facts:

1.) "Serial killers" are an extremely small portion of society.
2.) Not all serial killers are insane and/or deranged.
3.) The probability of a "random person" being a serial killer is extremely remote.

With those facts in mind, your example of a serial killer is not very useful. If we, instead, refer to the 99% of humans who are not serial killers, biological urges for happiness via social interaction and sexual acts (sometimes for procreation) are the primary reasons why we value our lives and restrain our behaviors to those that satisfy our biological urges and needs.

Then lets look at the assumptions:
inside of the assumption of God, a lot of things make sense..

Inside the assumption that life has meaning, it doesn't magically become clear HOW that works other than, well, we assumed it, so it does.

Inside the assumption of God, it becomes clear how it has meaning, because He is the Life.
Now, we could ascribe the life with meaning inside that assumption of life, but we still won't have a reason for that meaning.

However, I imagine if one truly believes in life, and Jesus is THE Life, then maybe that's actually believing in Jesus? Idk.

The mental construct of "god", being an analog of the father/son relationship, makes no more or less sense than other constructs that are also mental and/or biological (the aforementioned urges for social interaction and procreation).

 

[soccerballtux]

Your use of a "serial killer" is conspicuous. The following are facts:

1.) "Serial killers" are an extremely small portion of society.
2.) Not all serial killers are insane and/or deranged.
3.) The probability of a "random person" being a serial killer is extremely remote.

With those facts in mind, your example of a serial killer is not very useful. If we, instead, refer to the 99% of humans who are not serial killers, biological urges for happiness via social interaction and sexual acts (sometimes for procreation) are the primary reasons why we value our lives and restrain our behaviors to those that satisfy our biological urges and needs.



The mental construct of "god", being an analog of the father/son relationship, makes no more or less sense than other constructs that are also mental and/or biological (the aforementioned urges for social interaction and procreation).

Serial killer-- just an example most people don't agree with. Hitler works too.

Construct-- not arguing with you. Most anti-theists think their view makes more sense. All I can do with logic is show them, "actually it doesn't, in addition life doesn't have any meaning in yours..."

And if you want meaning in life, then what you really want is God you just don't know it yet... 😉

 

[soccerballtux]

Edited mine too.

I've never heard of any morality that isn't based on the meaning of existence. If the meaning of existence is a null reference, then what does that tell you about morality? That it, too, is meaningless.

 

[soccerballtux]

Serial killer-- just an example most people don't agree with. Hitler works too.

Construct-- not arguing with you. Most anti-theists think their view makes more sense. All I can do with logic is show them, "actually it doesn't, in addition life doesn't have any meaning in yours..."

And if you want meaning in life, then what you really want is God you just don't know it yet... 😉

* example of someone whose morals most people don't agree with.

 

[zsdersw]

Serial killer-- just an example most people don't agree with. Hitler works too.

Hitler is no more common and no more relevant.

Construct-- not arguing with you. Most anti-theists think their view makes more sense. All I can do with logic is show them, "actually it doesn't, in addition life doesn't have any meaning in yours..."

Must life have "meaning" in the manner you delineated?

And if you want meaning in life, then what you really want is God you just don't know it yet... 😉

Ah yes, I was waiting for and expecting this. Earlier you claim "most anti-theists" believe their view "makes more sense".. as if to say it is "superior"... and here you are, expressing your belief that your view is essentially superior because it is somehow a truth that some "just don't know yet". Ironic.

 

[Gyhrg71]

Most anti-theists think their view makes more sense. All I can do with logic is show them, "actually it doesn't, in addition life doesn't have any meaning in yours..."

And if you want meaning in life, then what you really want is God you just don't know it yet... 😉

But life does have meaning for people who don't believe in God, so how does that argument make sense?

 

[HAL9000]

Serial killer-- just an example most people don't agree with. Hitler works too.

Construct-- not arguing with you. Most anti-theists think their view makes more sense. All I can do with logic is show them, "actually it doesn't, in addition life doesn't have any meaning in yours..."

And if you want meaning in life, then what you really want is God you just don't know it yet... 😉

That's not the case, if you want life to have a reason you want an explination for why life exists the god is an option. My life has meaning, it has the meaning I've assigned it, the meaning of my life is to be happy, to make other people happy, to have a family.

I've never heard of any morality that isn't based on the meaning of existence. If the meaning of existence is a null reference, then what does that tell you about morality? That it, too, is meaningless.

Utilitarianism, or any of those types of ethical theories do not require life to have some kind of reason for being. They accept life exists and assign moral value to actions or inaction.

God is NOT the only way you can get meaning in your life. God is a way of being given meaning externally without figuring it out for yourself.

You also keep arguing that moral theory should be applicable to those incapable of understanding it, like hitler or serial killers. It doesn't apply to them because they are external to society, they are not part of society, they live outside the law and any moral code. They kill without logic, compassion, or empathy. They are the tinniest minority of people that cannot be a part of society because a) they choose not to be and b) they cannot comprehend it.

 

[spittledip]

I watched the video and thought it was ok. I did not find Hitchens to be angry and attacking- he seemed pretty even keeled. However, as CrazyHelloDeli noted, Hitchens is either ill-informed regarding the contents of the bible, or was setting up a strawman. Here are my responses to the first half of the video. I have to go to bed so I will post responses to the rest of it tomorrow.

1. Hitchens first argument is that the sacrifice of Christ is essentially morally bankrupt b/c the individual responsibility of a person for their sin is completely wiped out- one can take the punishment of a crime for another but this does not cause the person to be "wiped clean" from the responsibility of the crime- there is no forgiveness through the act of another. --- If you committed a crime against me, could I not forgive you? If you insulted me or punched me or took my lunch from me, can I not choose to forgive you? If we sin against God, can He not choose to forgive us in the same way I can forgive you for committing a wrong act against me? And if it is such that God's holy character demands that a penalty be paid, and for the sake of humanity puts the penalty on His Son, can He not choose to put the penalty on His son? If the sin is against Him and His holy character demands that the sin must be punished, can He not offer up His Son as the sacrifice for our forgiveness? It seems to me that the power to forgive lies in the hand of the offended and not the offender.

2. Hitchens speaks of Christ's execution as something that humanity as indeividuals are reponsible for in terms of , we as individuals are responsible for the act itself; Hitchens claims unfair b/c:
A. most of humanity was not there to stop it - whether or not we tried to stop the act, we would still be guilty b/c it is not the act itself we are held guilty for- we are held guilty for our Sin that Christ was sacrificed for;
B. We were not consulted when God decided to Sacrifice His son in our stead- since when does the judge ask the condemned what His sentence for them should be?

3. Totaliarianism? No matter who you are, you are born under authority. Until the day you die, you are under authority and have limited independence, be it parents, teachers, government, Boss, etc. This is no different with God. Why would anyone think any differently? So if there is a God we would not be under his total authority b/c it isn't "nice"?

4. SAying the belief is based upon wishful thinking is an assumption completely of Hitchen's own making. This assumption is forced upon those who believe merely through his force of words, and nothing more. His argument seems to rely upon hearing the "religious" saying "It may or may not be true- the main thing is that it makes me feel better." So we are to rely upon his heresay in order to validate his point?

5. Hitchens claims that the Bible teaches that people do not have am understanding of the concept of right and wrong innately. He obviously does not know the Bible as the bible teaches that God put His law into man- in fact, this was part of the Fall of Man- to become like God and know right and wrong.

6. Compulsory love? You don't have to love or even obey God in this life. It is very clear in the Bible that people are given the choice to love Him and obey Him. He does not force either on anyone. Also, to fear God is not to be terrified- it is to be in Awe of Him- this is much different than terror.

 

[HAL9000]

people are getting fed up with having other peoples imaginary friends shoved down their throat - Richard Dawkins

 

[child of wonder]

the atheist assumes he can rely on logic.
He can't argue for or against God without it.
Yet he can't justify the reliance on logic without logic itself.

Last I checked, cyclical reasoning is considered a logical fallacy.

This is comedy GOLD!!!! My wife and I thank you for the 60 seconds of tear wrenching laughter!