christopher hitchens

[buckshot24]

Anyhow, it all boils down to what is plausible/sensible to you. My mind tells me that down is down and up is up, and no matter how much you say up is down and down is up, up is still up and down is still down.

This isn't considered enough in these kinds of settings. When I look at the world I see one thing and you may see another. Coming at this from my perspective will make no sense to you. When I make valid points they simply don't register and must be wrong. I'm certain I do the same thing.

The idea that genetic copying mistakes and selection can build the biological machines we find in living things is the height of idiocy to me.

Belief in supernatural, belief that supernatural beings created life, that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on this planet, to me, that is beyond my imagination.

I'd invite you to really examine this belief. What has mutation been able to accomplish and is the extrapolation out to all the biodiversity on earth attainable by making enough mistakes? To me, this is crystal clear.

How are you able to suspend your disbelief? How do you convince yourself of the existence of a super-maker-creater omnipower type?

By not needing certainty. At some point you have to trust. The alternative view is that hydrogen turned into Mozart's 5th symphony all on its own.

I imagine it would be a reassuring through, but, to me, the necessary suspension of disbelieve is beyond my capacity.

How do you suspend your disbelief? The story that needs to be true for God not to exist is pretty unbelievable.

Naturally, you and I have different life histories, and your life experience is giving you different answers than mine is. So, I know, you probably really actually do believe at least some of what you say. I also believe that you probably are a pretty smart guy too. But, I do not understand you. It confounds me.

I used to be an atheist and arguments isn't what convinced me. I had a "change of perspective" moment which allowed me to look at things differently. Until that happened I wasn't able to do so, just like you.

Have a happy/good evening no matter what beliefs you subsscribe to, we can argue/debate/flame war another day. Peace!

Thanks, you too. I enjoyed your post.

 

[jackstar7]

To me, this is crystal clear.

^Certainty

By not needing certainty. At some point you have to trust.

^Uncertainty.

Those things contradict each other.

You might not be able to see it, but that's the root of the conflict raging within your mind.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Cooking whales isn't going to change the fact that they can't fly in the air.

Nobody told this guy.

 

[norseamd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXDX966pnRU

 

[Retro Rob]

Ever curious as to why some Believers who become Biblical Scholars end up as Unbelievers?

Curious? No, because I know why some "Biblical Scholars" end up unbelievers:

"I thank thee, oh Father...because thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast reveled them unto babes". Mattt 11:25 (KJV)

The "scholars" who become unbelievers feel they don't need God (or more specifically, the Bible) anymore, and according to this passage, God doesn't reveal truth to them.

 

[soulcougher73]

Curious? No, because I know why some "Biblical Scholars" end up unbelievers:

"I thank thee, oh Father...because thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast reveled them unto babes". Mattt 11:25 (KJV)

The "scholars" who become unbelievers feel they don't need God (or more specifically, the Bible) anymore, and according to this passage, God doesn't reveal truth to them.

God likes the hot babes huh?

 

[Moonbeam]

Curious? No, because I know why some "Biblical Scholars" end up unbelievers:

"I thank thee, oh Father...because thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast reveled them unto babes". Mattt 11:25 (KJV)

The "scholars" who become unbelievers feel they don't need God (or more specifically, the Bible) anymore, and according to this passage, God doesn't reveal truth to them.

You understand, I hope, that this could explain something real that many do not understand, and it can also be a defense against questioning, right? How does a believer know that he knows what is hidden from the wise and prudent, so called. We are supposed to look at fruits, I guess, but the same thing applies. How do we know what's a fruit and what isn't if our faith is as blind as an atheist's doubt?

 

[sandorski]

Curious? No, because I know why some "Biblical Scholars" end up unbelievers:

"I thank thee, oh Father...because thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast reveled them unto babes". Mattt 11:25 (KJV)

The "scholars" who become unbelievers feel they don't need God (or more specifically, the Bible) anymore, and according to this passage, God doesn't reveal truth to them.

God doesn't want people to know things about the Bible?

 

[TheSlamma]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXDX966pnRU

They just wanted to invite him on to shut him down and never even give him a question to answer.

I don't know what Christians are complaining about, they get 3 months of lead up time now on this friggin holiday.

Ironically though you have to remind people even up to the day before when Easter is.. but that is because all people get is some lousy cadbury eggs, nothin to see here folks, we only celebrate when we get in some mass consumption!! even though Easter is actually the whole point of the gods gift to humanity thing. Who is defiling Christmas? Not atheists that's for sure.

 

[norseamd]

Another video on CIA torture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IokVKvxHdCo

 

[GagHalfrunt]

God doesn't want people to know things about the Bible?

The biblical god comes across like a criminal psychopath mass-murdering piece of shit. It's reasonable for him to want to have that swept under the rug.

 

[feralkid]

What confuses me is if thats the case (and it looks so), why debate anyone about it? If you're relying on faith and don't want to question it why invite other people to question it? It's not like his non arguments are going to convince anyone else.

Could be this:

 

[norseamd]

Wait for it .....

MARRYING A PROTESTANT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRBrjt7z5Cw

 

[buckshot24]

What confuses me is if thats the case (and it looks so), why debate anyone about it? If you're relying on faith and don't want to question it why invite other people to question it? It's not like his non arguments are going to convince anyone else.

I'm not sure who he's referring to but this sounds like the Darwinist's blind faith in the power of mutation.

 

[JD50]

I'm not sure who he's referring to but this sounds like the Darwinist's blind faith in the power of mutation.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'm not sure who he's referring to but this sounds like the Darwinist's blind faith in the power of mutation.

bwahahahaha so true, so true.

"wait, that evidence does not support my stance so it must be incorrect evidence!"

 

[TheSlamma]

Thank you for that.. really hits home HARD in this thread.

 

[buckshot24]

Thank you for that.. really hits home HARD in this thread.

There hasn't been a shred of evidence presented that shows mutations can build biological machines. Making jokes doesn't change that.

 

[norseamd]

There hasn't been a shred of evidence presented that shows mutations can build biological machines. Making jokes doesn't change that.

 

[realibrad]

There hasn't been a shred of evidence presented that shows mutations can build biological machines. Making jokes doesn't change that.

I think that you are using the word evidence incorrectly. We have logical arguments for how evolution happens, and predictions that are supported by the theory. Evolution is evidently true, which is to say that the data we have points to the theory being correct.

You are making an argument of irreducible complexity, which is that some structures cannot be formed by incremental changes because the parts would alone not be a benefit.

Irreducible complexity is also a positive claim, which you may not realize. You have done this a lot, where you see the positive claim of evolution, but instead of just poking holes in the validity of the data, you make a positive claim that evolution could not build something. I have pointed out to you "how" evolution could build a complex structure, but you pass that off as a story. The problem is that evolution takes many generations over a very long time, and we just have not been looking long enough to see how all of these small changes add up to something new.

You admit to mutations, but you dont agree that eventually with enough mutations we could build something, but you have never once explained why or what you mean by that in a way that makes sense to people.

 

[waggy]

bwhahah nailed it.

 

[buckshot24]

I think that you are using the word evidence incorrectly. We have logical arguments for how evolution happens, and predictions that are supported by the theory. Evolution is evidently true, which is to say that the data we have points to the theory being correct.

More fluff and no evidence of this magical power of mutations.

You are making an argument of irreducible complexity, which is that some structures cannot be formed by incremental changes because the parts would alone not be a benefit.

Burden shifting again. I don't need to prove mutation and selection is impossible to account for biological machines.

Irreducible complexity is also a positive claim, which you may not realize. You have done this a lot, where you see the positive claim of evolution, but instead of just poking holes in the validity of the data, you make a positive claim that evolution could not build something.

Simply present your evidence that mutation and selection can actually do what you believe it can then. I have no burden of proof.

I have pointed out to you "how" evolution could build a complex structure, but you pass that off as a story.

Because it is a story with unverifiable steps. I already told you how to show this is more than a story by pointing to known mutation events that produces something similar.

The problem is that evolution takes many generations over a very long time, and we just have not been looking long enough to see how all of these small changes add up to something new.

Have faith brethren, mutations are the answer and will produce the results we blindly and against all observation believe to have occurred.

You admit to mutations, but you dont agree that eventually with enough mutations we could build something, but you have never once explained why or what you mean by that in a way that makes sense to people.

Based on what we do observe mutations doing, there is no reason to believe ridiculously complex biomolecular machines could be the result of a bunch of copying mistakes. This is an axiomatic belief that must simply be assumed to be true despite the observable evidence.

So please, quit wasting my time with platitudes and fairytales and post some evidence that mutations can do what you believe they can.

 

[kage69]

Rarely do you see a thread summed up so well in a single pic, well done JD!

Was just reviewing what the thread morphed into, and have to say I do love it when the usual suspects play along and prove my point for me. Mud everywhere, and the majority of it sprayed about by our new pious John Connor.

He was always getting owned, his childish arguments were pathetic.

I'm guessing it isn't lost on many that with the many posted examples we've had confirming Hitchens' legendary reputation, not a single citation or link has been offered to support the above.

Does anyone else know of an event where Christopher Hitchens was "getting owned," or where any of his arguments were roundly seen as "pathetic"? I can't seem to locate anything on these 22 pages of thread, nor on youtube. Help me out here. I'm genuinely keen to know what it looks like when Hitchens "gets owned."

TIA!

 

[sandorski]

More fluff and no evidence of this magical power of mutations.
Burden shifting again. I don't need to prove mutation and selection is impossible to account for biological machines.

Simply present your evidence that mutation and selection can actually do what you believe it can then. I have no burden of proof.
Because it is a story with unverifiable steps. I already told you how to show this is more than a story by pointing to known mutation events that produces something similar.
Have faith brethren, mutations are the answer and will produce the results we blindly and against all observation believe to have occurred.
Based on what we do observe mutations doing, there is no reason to believe ridiculously complex biomolecular machines could be the result of a bunch of copying mistakes. This is an axiomatic belief that must simply be assumed to be true despite the observable evidence.

So please, quit wasting my time with platitudes and fairytales and post some evidence that mutations can do what you believe they can.

"Biological machines" exist, you are one. Every one of them has Mutations, you have mutations. They pass some of their mutations onto their children, you have passed some mutations to your children. This process repeats each generation for millions of years.

Change after so many mutations is inevitable.

 

[sandorski]

Rarely do you see a thread summed up so well in a single pic, well done JD!

Was just reviewing what the thread morphed into, and have to say I do love it when the usual suspects play along and prove my point for me. Mud everywhere, and the majority of it sprayed about by our new pious John Connor.




I'm guessing it isn't lost on many that with the many posted examples we've had confirming Hitchens' legendary reputation, not a single citation or link has been offered to support the above.

Does anyone else know of an event where Christopher Hitchens was "getting owned," or where any of his arguments were roundly seen as "pathetic"? I can't seem to locate anything on these 22 pages of thread, nor on youtube. Help me out here. I'm genuinely keen to know what it looks like when Hitchens "gets owned."

TIA!

He had a Debate/Discussion with AC Grayling where I thought Hitchens struggled. Not sure how much of a debate it was though, may have been more a discussion, nevertheless Grayling was a challenge.