christopher hitchens

[soulcougher73]

You're projecting.

I have plenty of meaning in my life, mainly my wife and children, and that has nothing to do with believing in a god.

Love this photo:

 

[fskimospy]

To a caveman, a cell phone would be "magic", but that's not actually "magic".

It's due to a lack of information, unless people simply wish to caricature the narrative.

Yes, but a cell phone is created entirely within the natural order. Christian theology explicitly places God outside of this order, which is how it avoids the 'who created God' problem, among others.

Christian theology explicitly makes God supernatural, so he is by definition magical. You can't have it both ways.

 

[jackstar7]

No need for that assumption.

YOU ARE IMPLYING IT. If that's not your intention, then you are communicating your idea poorly.

 

[buckshot24]

YOU ARE IMPLYING IT. If that's not your intention, then you are communicating your idea poorly.

I don't think I am and you asserting that I am isn't helping me see it.

 

[Retro Rob]

And to a biblical time person a volcano erupting, tidal wave, lightning storm would have been magic. We know now its not actually magic but mother nature. Hell we can even predict them coming/happening now.

Should say something about what you just said.

No really. The issue with this is that people nowadays love to assume that folks living thousands of years ago were stupid.

They used science. You see the weapons, homes (with some level of plumbing), largely and nicely architectural pyramids, temples, etc.

And the people who wrote the bible didn't attribute natural phenomenon to God or "magic" (please correct me if I am wrong). They attributed unnatural things to God, like resurrections, angels, and so on.

 

[jackstar7]

I am part of your audience. I'm giving you the critical feedback. If you're unable to alter your message to communicate your actual thoughts, then I cannot have a chance at understanding you.

You are stating that evolved bags of molecules have no inherent value. This implies that there is an origin that would imbue an inherent value. I'm telling you that if this isn't correct, then you are being misunderstood.

 

[buckshot24]

I am part of your audience. I'm giving you the critical feedback. If you're unable to alter your message to communicate your actual thoughts, then I cannot have a chance at understanding you.

You are stating that evolved bags of molecules of molecules have no inherent value. This implies that there is an origin that would imbue an inherent value. I'm telling you that if this isn't correct, then you are being misunderstood.

You've just asserted the exact same thing. How does it imply this?

 

[jackstar7]

You've just asserted the exact same thing. How does it imply this?

What did I assert? Please elaborate.

 

[buckshot24]

What did I assert? Please elaborate.

This implies that there is an origin that would imbue an inherent value.

How?

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, but a cell phone is created entirely within the natural order.

Cavemen don't/didn't/wouldn't have known that, hence, my point.

You're essentially making the error of calling something "magic" because the details aren't there, but just like Cavemen, you'd also be wrong.

You're just filling the gap of ignorance with the word "magic" ('ignorance' as to "lacking knowledge").

I'm not insulting you.

 

[fskimospy]

Cavemen don't/didn't know that, hence, my point.

You're essentially making the error of calling something "magic" because the details aren't there, but just like Cavemen, you'd also be wrong.

You're just filling the gap of ignorance with the word "magic" ('ignorance' as to "lacking knowledge).

I'm not insulting you.

I'm not actually saying it's magical because the details aren't there, I'm saying it's magical according to your own theology if I understand it correctly.

You believe god exists outside of time, does not require a first cause, is all powerful, all knowing, etc, correct? Every one of those things is supernatural as defined by our language, and supernatural and magical are synonyms. I have frequently heard how god is not subject to natural laws.

Either he's not subject to natural laws and is therefore supernatural/magical, or is is subject to natural laws and we have a much larger conversation on our hands, haha. You can't have it both ways.

Is it because you view being called magical as a pejorative in some way? I can see that, and in some ways I was poking fun at the idea, but I don't believe it's an inaccurate description.

 

[jackstar7]

How?

Oh, I see.

You said this:

Origins matter whether you have sand in your ears or not.

Then you explained the evolved bag of chemicals having no intrinsic value.

So, if origins matter and this mentioned origin has no value... you are implying there is an origin that does imbue value.

Do you still not see it?

 

[fskimospy]

How?

You called out one type of origin as not having an inherent value. Implicit in that statement is that you believe another origin would have a different outcome. If you didn't, a person attempting to clearly communicate would have said 'no origin has inherent value' instead of singling one out.

So either you meant that other origins DO supply inherent value or you are communicating very poorly.

 

[JD50]

Cavemen don't/didn't/wouldn't have known that, hence, my point.

You're essentially making the error of calling something "magic" because the details aren't there, but just like Cavemen, you'd also be wrong.

You're just filling the gap of ignorance with the word "magic" ('ignorance' as to "lacking knowledge").

I'm not insulting you.

You are the one claiming that God is supernatural. That is, by definition, magic.

 

[jackstar7]

You called out one type of origin as not having an inherent value. Implicit in that statement is that you believe another origin would have a different outcome. If you didn't, a person attempting to clearly communicate would have said 'no origin has inherent value' instead of singling one out.

So either you meant that other origins DO supply inherent value or you are communicating very poorly.

And this tells you that two members of your audience caught the same implication.

Either clarify or revise, or otherwise explain yourself better.

Thank you.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not actually saying it's magical because the details aren't there, I'm saying it's magical according to your own theology if I understand it correctly.

Our theology about creation doesn't hold that the creation in the creation narrative is "magical". We believe God used the materials in the physical world to create life, the same physical elements used to make cell phones.

Put it this way, if God used his powers to assemble a car using available parts, is that "magic"? If he made parts that don't already exists, out of thin air, yes, THAT would be "magic".

Better, it would mean God has more POWER and ABILITY than humans.

Otherwise, he'd be using the same natural order humans use.

You believe god exists outside of time, does not require a first cause, is all powerful, all knowing, etc, correct? Every one of those things is supernatural as defined by our language, and supernatural and magical are synonyms. I have frequently heard how god is not subject to natural laws

Of course, but we're not talking about the nature of God (or at least, I didn't think I was)

Is it because you view being called magical as a pejorative in some way? I can see that, and in some ways I was poking fun at the idea, but I don't believe it's an inaccurate description.

Of course it's used in this context as a pejorative, however, I don't think its an accurate description.

 

[soulcougher73]

Our theology about creation doesn't hold that the creation in the creation narrative is "magical". We believe God used the materials in the physical world to create life, the same physical elements used to make cell phones.

Put it this way, if God used his powers to assemble a car using available parts, is that "magic"? If he made parts that don't already exists, out of thin air, yes, THAT would be "magic".

So God didn't create the physical elements or universe then?

 

[fskimospy]

Our theology about creation doesn't hold that the creation in the creation narrative is "magical". We believe God used the materials in the physical world to create life, the same physical elements used to make cell phones.

Put it this way, if God used his powers to assemble a car using available parts, is that "magic"? If he made parts that don't already exists, out of thin air, yes, THAT would be "magic".

Otherwise, he'd be using the same natural order humans use.

If god put a car together using a welding torch, a wrench, etc, of course that wouldn't be magical. That's not the case here though. Christian theology holds that god created the universe (and therefore life) out of nothing. That violates the laws of thermodynamics, so it is impossible for him to have created life by anything other than supernatural/magical forces in a way that is consistent with Christian theology as I understand it.

Of course, but we're not talking about the nature of God (or at least, I didn't think I was)

Well if we're arguing that he is overall magical but wasn't being magical here, that seems like a very fine distinction. One I also happen to think is wrong as I noted above, but what would be the purpose of the distinction anyway?

Of course it's used in this context as a pejorative, however, I don't think its an accurate description.

Meh, I was just having some fun with buckshot. He's certainly done enough to deserve our contempt and more by this point.

 

[Retro Rob]

So God didn't create the physical elements or universe then?

I was specifically referring to the life on this planet, AFTER the physical universe came to be.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that, but I am now.

 

[soulcougher73]

I gotta say. Sometimes i wonder if there is a website i don't know about where theists debate with stupid athiests that these points they try to make here actually work. Hopefully their aren't any atheists that are that stupid as i like to think the rationale and logic it takes to become one would be enough to win any religious debate.

 

[MongGrel]

And the people who wrote the bible didn't attribute natural phenomenon to God or "magic" (please correct me if I am wrong). They attributed unnatural things to God, like resurrections, angels, and so on.

You're wrong.

See about anything related to solar eclipses, volcanoes erupting, etc just for the major ones.

Seriously ? I mean you even have modern day cases of blaming things like Hurricane Katrina and HIV just to name a few on "The Wrath of GOD".

God's judgement seems to pop up on almost a daily basis in about anything it appears.

 

[soulcougher73]

I was specifically referring to the life on this planet, AFTER the physical universe came to be.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that, but I am now.

Ok i suppose i can grant you that. BUT..wouldnt creating the physical universe be described a "magic" as we know it?

 

[WelshBloke]

I was specifically referring to the life on this planet, AFTER the physical universe came to be.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that, but I am now.

So how did he manipulate this matter that he magically created to make life.

Tweezers? A teeny tiny shovel? Magic?

 

[Retro Rob]

You're wrong.

I said "correct me if I am wrong", not just assert that I am wrong.

Seriously ? I mean you even have modern day cases of blaming things like Hurricane Katrina and HIV just to name a few on "The Wrath of GOD".

Who gives a damn?

I said nothing about modern-day Christians.

 

[MongGrel]

I said "correct me if I am wrong", not just assert that I am wrong.

You have a nice day.