• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

christopher hitchens

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Retro Rob said:
How is it? If it were, there would have been no need for Satan to "trick" Eve -- evil would have simply come into play automatically.

Since an external source was needed to bring evil, according to the story, it wasn't at all a part of creation.

People aren't born "evil". Without external influences, there would be no evil now. Evil is learned.
Click to expand...

Was not Satan created by God?
 
Hopefully people are searching for an example of the formation of a self replicating molecule in realistic conditions. (I'd take any conditions at this point)
 
This thread only proves Hitchens was right. The intellectual dishonesty of the theists trying to shift the burden of proof takes so many form. Ad nauseam.

Edit: Should consider this thread dead. Nothing to see here, folks.
 
Last edited:
sandorski said:
...and?
Click to expand...

What do you mean "and"?

Weren't you trying to make the point that evil is the result of creation?

If that were the case, Jesus would have been evil by default, but he wasn't....which supports the point that evil didn't affect perfect creation unless they made the choice.

Free will was total and complete. That's the only way they could willingly obey God. According to the bible, Jesus chose to follow God, debunking the idea that evil was somehow inherent.
 
Retro Rob said:
I agree with Hitch's intelligence and whit, but I've longed stopped watching "debates" about the existence of God.

One person pointed this out to me as to why these debates are ultimately pointless:

Imagine that a rock is floating past Pluto right now...but its too small for us to see using current scientific instruments. Staging debates and "arguments" for and against that possibility does NOTHING to change the objective reality that a rock either is or isn't floating past Pluto at this moment.

I see "debates" about God's existence in a very similar fashion. Good or bad arguments for or against the objective existence/non-existence of God does nothing to alter either reality -- logical/illogical arguments does nothing to change either fact.

...so it goes with debating about God's existence/non-existence.
Click to expand...

What you describe is Russell's teapot and was used to display a point that they burden of proof is on the person claiming.

In other words the burden of proving Gods existence is on the person who states it as so and not the burden of the person who says it isnt so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
 
Retro Rob said:
What do you mean "and"?

Weren't you trying to make the point that evil is the result of creation?

If that were the case, Jesus would have been evil by default, but he wasn't....which supports the point that evil didn't affect perfect creation unless they made the choice.

Free will was total and complete. That's the only way they could willingly obey God. According to the bible, Jesus chose to follow God, debunking the idea that evil was somehow inherent.
Click to expand...

It is moot whether Jesus was not Evil. The very existence of Evil is the problem. A perfect creation could not choose imperfection. Regardless who did it or how they chose it.
 
Ricochet said:
This thread only proves Hitchens was right. The intellectual dishonesty of the theists trying to shift the burden of proof takes so many form. Ad nauseam.

Edit: Should consider this thread dead. Nothing to see here, folks.
Click to expand...

There is no proof God exists or does not exist. The key is being OK with not knowing and that is just not something theists can do.

But in my mind theists have dual burdens.

1. Evidence of Gods Existence
2. Evidence that if God exists he is anything like they describe with their religion
 
Retro Rob said:
I have no one on ignore. Sure, stupidity sometimes deserves a non-response, but that can be handled on a case-by-case basis by simply not replying.
Click to expand...

I meant buckshot actually.

He seems to be the guy putting half the thread on ignore and just rambling on.
 
Last edited:
sandorski said:
It is moot whether Jesus was not Evil. The very existence of Evil is the problem. A perfect creation could not choose imperfection. Regardless who did it or how they chose it.
Click to expand...

You're now conflating "evil" (which is learned) with imperfection (which is inherent) -- not the same thing.

Regardless, every single time something's inconvenient for you, it's "moot" -- or in other words, you're simply hand waving counter points.

Meet modern atheism....
 
Retro Rob said:
You're now conflating "evil" (which is learned) with imperfection (which is inherent) -- not the same thing.

Regardless, every single time something's inconvenient for you, it's "moot" -- or in other words, you're simply hand waving counter points.

Meet modern atheism....
Click to expand...

Again, if a Perfect God makes a Perfect Creation then imperfection is not a possibility. There is no way for the imperfect Evil to exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top