christopher hitchens

[Retro Rob]

My god you are terrible with analogies.

It's logical to think there might be a rock floating past pluto because there are other rocks in space. It's logical to think that there is a god because other gods exist, wait what?

I know what I'm sayin'...and chill out and join in the discussion.

 

[Retro Rob]

My god you are terrible with analogies.

It's logical to think there might be a rock floating past pluto because there are other rocks in space. It's logical to think that there is a god because other gods exist, wait what?

I said it's logical to assume a god exist because life cannot come from non-life.

God, according to religious traditions, is LIFE, though not terrestrial life.

All this is really besides my point. Debates and arguments simply don't make things "fact", or "false".

 

[soulcougher73]

I've never heard any of these solid reasons.

That's because you are already brainwashed with religious blinders on. You'll likely never see the real world.

 

[Ricochet]

That isn't from religion but keep equivocating.

Believing in deities = religion. They're all religion. You can believe you're in a special "relationship" with Jesus all you want. It's still a religion.

I'm not sure why you keep defending it. No theist is an atheist, at all.

The example I gave you completely went over your head and you keep repeating the definition that we all know and Hitchens knows. As a linguistic master, he succeeded in using the term for the appropriate effect. Even after death, he gives the proverbial beatdown to the simple minded.

So what? In his debates about the existence of God he brings up crap done by the Catholic Church constantly. I'm right.

You're right. Hitchens' has a favorite topic to discuss about Catholics. I wonder why that is?

Not the topic of debates?

Oh, but it is very related to the topic on hand.

I'd like him to say we have no idea how life could have started because that is the truth. The fairy tales proposed are just that. "backs of crystals", "thermal heat vents", "RNA world", whatever is all wishful thinking and none of them are "good explanations".

Better ask your god to raise him from the dead if you want him to say that. What is good explanation for him is not good explanation for you. But we can all agree that "god did it" is the worst explanation humans have ever came up with.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I said it's logical to assume a god exist because life cannot come from non-life.

How do you know this? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but would like to understand how you came to the position on the subject you have. We are made entirely of non-living building blocks.

 

[Ricochet]

I've never heard any of these solid reasons.

Name one source of god that is NOT man made. The concept of it has always been fabricated and often plagiarized. The fact that it has always been taught and perpetually taught by humans should tell you something. The reason not to believe far outweighs the reason to believe.

 

[Retro Rob]

How do you know this? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but would like to understand how you came to the position on the subject you have. We are made entirely of non-living building blocks.

I guess you missed where I said:

All this is really besides my point. Debates and arguments simply don't make things "fact", or "false".

Choose your atheist/religious leader, nothing he says changes anything.

 

[buckshot24]

Believing in deities = religion. They're all religion. You can believe you're in a special "relationship" with Jesus all you want. It's still a religion.

The argument isn't that people can form groups thinking they are worshiping God and that is how we can justify morality. But you keep on banging away on an irrelevant drum, just like Hitchens.

The example I gave you completely went over your head and you keep repeating the definition that we all know and Hitchens knows. As a linguistic master, he succeeded in using the term for the appropriate effect. Even after death, he gives the proverbial beatdown to the simple minded.

I'm not sure he's the one who starting using this idiotic argument or not. Dawkins has used it. But it has zero impact on me, it's stupid and 100% incorrect.

You're right. Hitchens' has a favorite topic to discuss about Catholics. I wonder why that is?

Trotting around red herrings? Yeah, that's it.

Oh, but it is very related to the topic on hand.

No it isn't.

Better ask your god to raise him from the dead if you want him to say that. What is good explanation for him is not good explanation for you. But we can all agree that "god did it" is the worst explanation humans have ever came up with.

The cause must be adequate to create the effect. We do not agree that "god did it" is the worst explanation. Your blind faith that life created itself is your problem. You people have no good explanations to the origin of life and lying to yourselves isn't going to change that.

 

[buckshot24]

I know what I'm sayin'...and chill out and join in the discussion.

This is why I put him on ignore.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I guess you missed where I said:



Choose your atheist/religious leader, nothing he says changes anything.

Your opinion or my opinion doesn't change whatever the reality of the situation is, sure, no argument there But we're talking about an unknown, logic would dictate we look at ideas and try and whittle away the bad ones so we're left with the ones that make sense, that have evidence to back them (we've enriched our lives and increased our lifespans quite a bit by following this method over the years). You said that life cannot come from non-life, I don't think that's necessarily true. I'd be curious to know why you think that must be the case.

 

[buckshot24]

Name one source of god that is NOT man made. The concept of it has always been fabricated and often plagiarized. The fact that it has always been taught and perpetually taught by humans should tell you something. The reason not to believe far outweighs the reason to believe.

So you're a fan of red herrings and now non sequiturs. How does something always being taught make it a fabrication? No wonder you're an atheist.

But now you've made a quantitative argument. Would you mind outlining your calculations for us? How much does the reasons to believe weigh?

 

[shira]

No more dead than other dead people.

Actually, a lot more alive than many living people.

 

[shira]

Choose your atheist/religious leader, nothing he says changes anything.

Except maybe people's minds.

 

[buckshot24]

You said that life cannot come from non-life, I don't think that's necessarily true. I'd be curious to know why you think that must be the case.

Its called the null hypothesis. Unless you have evidence to the contrary the default position should be that life comes from other living things only.

 

[buckshot24]

I said it's logical to assume a god exist because life cannot come from non-life.

God, according to religious traditions, is LIFE, though not terrestrial life.

All this is really besides my point. Debates and arguments simply don't make things "fact", or "false".

He's a hack and doesn't argue honestly. He knows you're right.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is why I put him on ignore.

I mean, he really doesn't contribute anything to the discussion...just chimes in to criticize and divert the argument, instead of actually addressing the meat of the post.

 

[Retro Rob]

Except maybe people's minds.

So what? People's minds have been changed to accept Christ was the Son of God.

Does that mean anything from a scientific standpoint?

 

[shira]

Forget the "gaps", there is no good or even semi plausible explanation for the origin of life and that won't change any time soon (ever).

There you go again, introducing "origin of life" into a thread on religion.

Why do I detect a pattern here?: When a thread discusses atheistic arguments, you introduce concepts like the origin of life or evolution. What possible relevance could that have to the existence of God unless YOU believe the two are inextricable tied together?

Yet when challenged on that - when explicitly asked a what-if question ("Would you still believe in God if even the scientific explanation for the origin of life convinced even you?"), you continually say you would still believe.

So I repeat the question yet again: Why are you wasting our time, introducing concepts that you insist are irrelevant to the belief in God?

 

[soulcougher73]

Its called the null hypothesis. Unless you have evidence to the contrary the default position should be that there is no God.

FTFY. You're welcome.

But let me guess...special pleading?

 

[fskimospy]

Its called the null hypothesis. Unless you have evidence to the contrary the default position should be that life comes from other living things only.

That is not the null hypothesis, actually. You don't understand the terms you are using.

The null hypothesis is that the independent variable being studied has no effect on the dependent variable. The actual null positions here are that neither life nor non-life can create life. We have evidence that life can create other life, and so far do not have concrete evidence that life can arise from non-life.

In no way does that make that life can ONLY come from other life the default position. That would be a profound misunderstanding of science.

Not to mention that if that's the case God has the same problem. That is unless you just magically declare it not a problem, which then leaves you in absolutely no position to criticize anyone else because you've abandoned logic.

There is simply no problem with evolution or the origin of life that is not an even larger logical problem for theistic creation.

 

[Ricochet]

The argument isn't that people can form groups thinking they are worshiping God and that is how we can justify morality. But you keep on banging away on an irrelevant drum, just like Hitchens.

Jibberish.

I'm not sure he's the one who starting using this idiotic argument or not. Dawkins has used it. But it has zero impact on me, it's stupid and 100% incorrect.

You simply do not understand linguistic.

Trotting around red herrings? Yeah, that's it.

Par for the course.

No it isn't.

Ooh good argument. (sarcasm)

The cause must be adequate to create the effect. We do not agree that "god did it" is the worst explanation. Your blind faith that life created itself is your problem. You people have no good explanations to the origin of life and lying to yourselves isn't going to change that.

LOL. Of course I know that you don't agree with it. That statement was to get a better understanding of your belief. It got under your skin. I'm an atheist so no blind faith here. Lack of belief is not faith. Go back to the definition (just like you try to pin that on Hitchens). When I was a Christian, I had to resort to lying to myself, wishful thinking, and whole lot group support to maintain a belief. No truth should ever resort to that. Good luck with your blind faith.

 

[buckshot24]

There you go again, introducing "origin of life" into a thread on religion.

I was criticizing Hitch's "arguments" which origin of life was just one of them.

Why do I detect a pattern here?: When a thread discusses atheistic arguments, you introduce concepts like the origin of life or evolution. What possible relevance could that have to the existence of God unless YOU believe the two are inextricable tied together?

Learn to read.

Yet when challenged on that - when explicitly asked a what-if question ("Would you still believe in God if even the scientific explanation for the origin of life convinced even you?"), you continually say you would still believe.

How about you man up and support your idiotic assertion that the origin of life is "pretty well understood"?

So I repeat the question yet again: Why are you wasting our time, introducing concepts that you insist are irrelevant to the belief in God?

I in no way even suggested this to be the case. I said I don't believe in God because the utter futility of origin of life studies. Learn to read.

Now that you have been corrected, the next time you say such things I'll know you're just lying instead of incompetent.

 

[JD50]

I mean, he really doesn't contribute anything to the discussion...just chimes in to criticize and divert the argument, instead of actually addressing the meat of the post.

I addressed your post, it was another failed analogy and I pointed out why.

 

[buckshot24]

Jibberish.

Quite the rejoinder.

You simply do not understand linguistic.

Is that a pasta or something?

Par for the course.

Bad behavior of "religious" people has nothing to do with whether God exists. It is a red herring to point to this behavior.

Ooh good argument. (sarcasm)

Lets stop wasting eachothers time.

 

[Retro Rob]

I addressed your post, it was another failed analogy and I pointed out why.

OK