Amazon.com Widgets

« Christopher Hitchens / Bill Maher | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday »

Hannity / Hitchens

It is important when discussing the existence of God to get a definition established. The religious have a habit of talking about God in two ways, one as a first cause and nothing more, but then they play the bait and switch and you have a personal God that cares about you. Hitchens asks the question, Hannity ducks it.

note: any comments about Hitchens view on Iraq will get your comment deleted since they are off topic .




Quicktime Video 10.4 MB : 00:05:03
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

Typically. What created the big bang. Religion has done some good. Hitchens was correct when he said it sounded like Hannity hadn't read any arguments against his position.

"destroyed universes"????

Hitchen's correct position aside, he's either suffering from severe gerd or he's pickling his brain with booze.

I'd take away his car keys if he were slurring like that at my house...

Two things..

First, if one is going to defend religion by arguing that it provides good for the world as Hannity did at the end of the clip, then one needs to address its potential for evil. And even if one does address this potential, it will be realized that religion isn't the source for good nor evil. Rather, it helps to amplify them while the source of good and evil is innate within us.

And second, I respect Hitchens' intellect with regard to his ideas on atheism. However, he does not bode well in front of the camera. First, he tends to come off a bit too pretentious. Also, he looks soulless (Is there a clip of him laughing or showing any emotion?) and even drunk at times (And yes, I know he has or had problems with alcoholism). This is why I'm more of a fan of Dawkins (Harris, too, comes off as a bit cold).

I love how no matter who is arguing who, the religious side always mentions, "Well, something created the big bang/species/universe/energy/what have you, and this somehow gives them solace in their position; yet they fail to realize that an infinite number of gods, if one (or many) exist, could have created the big bang/species/universe/energy/what have you and there is no evidence whatsoever that their specific god is responsible, thus there is absolutely no point in being anything at all other than a deist or an atheist. As soon as specifics are introduced, it's almost guaranteed to be incorrect.

Another curiosity, then, is the idea that being a deist is essentially a waste of time. If one does not believe in an specific god (Zeus, Yahweh, et cetera...), then believing in just "god," whomever he/she/it/they may be means that one believes in something that did not exist (to humans, at least) before the introduction of specific gods. In other words, there were no gods before the specific gods, thus if one is going to ignore the specific gods, then he or she might as well just ignore the very concept of a god altogether.

user-pic

Sheesh. Neither one of these guys comes off well, IMO. Hannity's simply a nitwit, but hello? Chris? Even though you don't believe God created the Universe, you must surely believe he created Starbucks. After all, 'hebrews' every morning.

Well, something created the big bang/ species/ universe/ energy/ what have you

How about this as an answer:

"How do you know that? Did you or someone else (a scientist perhaps?) do an experiment that tells you that 'something cannot come from nothing'? Do you have faith in the result of this hypothetical experiment? What makes you think that there was ever 'nothing'? Or, perhaps, your god told you that, in the beginning, this was true?

I wish hannity would put the same set of questions towards dawkins when discussing 'the unvierse', creation, ect.

A simple "Matter is neither created nor destoryed" would put a lot of those questions to rest.

Also, an interesting Russell quote (off the top of my head): "The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

Nothing logically follows that things that exist need a creation. Other philosophies and religions point to the idea that our universe is in an endless cycle of creation and destruction, never starting and never ending.

the show is called hannity's america. that is huh larious.

ps hitchen's was either really tired or hung over or something, cause he was not at his sharpest at all. i guess he figured it was hannity so it didnt matter if he got drunk. he'd still be more coherent.

hannity's america. lol

Sooooo, Hannity believes it's absurd to believe that matter and energy has always existed (first law of thermodynamics) but he has no problem with an intelligent, physical being dwelling for eternity in an empty void who created all of existence just to tell people not to stick their penises in the wrong places.

Hannity says that religion does many things: feed the hungry, helps the poor, etc.

That is utter tripe. Religion doesn't do these things, people do these things. (Both theists and atheists, I might add).

user-pic

Hitchens did look a little tired (and his consistency seems phoned in), and I'm pretty sure he's wearing the same clothes in each interview (neither of which is a suprise for someone who is on a promotional tour), although he managed to unbutton his shirt for Maher (it is late night afterall). Let's hope he was wearing pants for either interview (which would be strong enough proof for no god).

Hannity equals inanity.

I tell theists that they cannot use Big Bang theory: it is not part of the theory that something existed prior to it. It WAS the beginning of all - nothing more (m-theory is usually how I continue to bash the theist position).

When theists accept Big Bang and God in the same sentence, they are completely ignoring Big Bang theory.

  1. Hannity argues that something can come out of nothing. So where and how did God come about?

  2. Don't most religious people believe that God is infinite? And if so, if they believe in infinity, and apply that to space and time, then why must there be a beginning?

  3. Picking up on a part of Firi's point regarding "specific gods", it always seemed to me that to believe in a god that is simply a creator of the universe, or one who could be described in very general terms like "God is love" or "God is the life force"... is rather a pointless thing to believe or not believe in. If God is not a very personal God who takes great interest in what you do and determines your fate in this life or the next, then he/it is essentially irrelevant.

i have to give hitchens props for arguing the other side there a bit at the end, even if it was to further drive his point about philanthropy being proof of nothing: "many philanthropists have been atheists; it doesn't prove atheism is correct." as a theist, it makes me think well of atheists or agnostics (or theists, for that matter) if they can admit to the flaws in their own thinking. since hitchens isn't above doing so, i wonder if calling him snobbish is accurate...

i have to give hitchens props for arguing the other side there a bit at the end, even if it was to further drive his point about philanthropy being proof of nothing: "many philanthropists have been atheists; it doesn't prove atheism is correct." as a theist, it makes me think well of atheists or agnostics (or theists, for that matter) if they can admit to the flaws in their own thinking. since hitchens isn't above doing so, i wonder if calling him snobbish is accurate...

What are the odds that the ignorant, uneducated Hannity, or any of his regular viewers, understood what Hitchens meant by "invigilation"?

I doubt that he even had the curiosity to ask his interns to look it up for him. Lack of curiosity is one of the signal characteristics of the religious mind, and particularly in wingnut commentators.

They are only there to bully and browbeat with their certitudes.

Douglas Watts said:

"Atheists are fascist losers, cf.:

"note: any comments about Hitchens view on Iraq will get your comment deleted."

pathetic."

This video has nothing to do with his views on Iraq. Likely Norm is as sick as the rest of us of people invoking them to discount anything unrelated he has to say.

What's pathetic is that he'd have to go this far to get you people to judge the subject matter based on its own merits, rather than what the speaker has said about other completely different things.

That said, Hitchens performed better than I could have in that situation, but I can't help but think that Hannity's arguments were so weak that they should have been much more easily refuted on the spot.

bugjah,

I never claimed to believe that the universe came from nothing. I do not know what it came from, but this does not automatically mean that a god or gods is responsible.

I do find the theoretical physics and so forth interesting; however, when a scientist states that nothing is approximately 60% unstable, thus something statistically must come from nothing eventually and so forth, but I do not automatically hold it as fact that this is how "somethingness" began.

Perhaps the universe always was; perhaps it spawned from unstable nothingness; or perhaps some being (whether a god, aliens, cosmic computer program, et cetera...) is behind it. I have no idea -- no one does.

Believers like to play pseudo-theist to sound intellectual, but philosophical concepts rooted in hard science do not fall to believers playing costume-thinker. Every quasi-theist believer is like a microcosm of Intelligent Design.

Let's use our half-arsed thought on the matter and just fumble up their words back to their arguments. We're bound to advance just far enough to throw in the "oh, well religion does good!" sucker punch.

Anyway, the fundamental problem with Christianity for someone trying to argument the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy is that Christians are working off of the pseudo-scientific premise that the Universe is 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Thus their imagination is robbed of conceiving of a gradual evolutionary process...let alone that all matter and energy has always been and always will be, as well as the Universe.

Then they apply their double standard. "Well, those sorts of things are too finite or limited to explain the complexity of life! I'd rather just assume god did it so I can go sin up a storm. It's easier to get my sinning over with and repent on Sundays, otherwise, I'd actually have to worry about my decisions all the time. I can't have all that thinking going on in my mind."

Believers like to play pseudo-theist to sound intellectual, but philosophical concepts rooted in hard science do not fall to believers playing costume-thinker. Every quasi-theist believer is like a microcosm of Intelligent Design.

Let's use our half-arsed thought on the matter and just fumble up their words back to their arguments. We're bound to advance just far enough to throw in the "oh, well religion does good!" sucker punch.

Anyway, the fundamental problem with Christianity for someone trying to argument the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy is that Christians are working off of the pseudo-scientific premise that the Universe is 6,000 - 10,000 years old. Thus their imagination is robbed of conceiving of a gradual evolutionary process...let alone that all matter and energy has always been and always will be, as well as the Universe.

Then they apply their double standard. "Well, those sorts of things are too finite or limited to explain the complexity of life! I'd rather just assume god did it so I can go sin up a storm. It's easier to get my sinning over with and repent on Sundays, otherwise, I'd actually have to worry about my decisions all the time. I can't have all that thinking going on in my mind."

The philosophical corollary of this bait and switch is the division between and apparent inconsistency of on the one hand a necessary existent being (the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause) who seems essentially devoid of properties on the one hand, and on the other the rather more flamboyant creature of the bible and the design argument who is chock-a-block with contingent properties. Again, as most proponents of the arguments of natural theology are fully paid up members of some congregation or another, the same game of bait-and-switch is an needs to be played. What is seemingly less obvious to many people (and it is a shame) is that these two are completely incompatible - the evidence for god is given in terms of the necessary existence, he is explained in terms of the contingent, but of course if the arguments for the necessary existence hold true then they rule out the contingent existence just as much as they rule out the contingent world as the ultimate source, unmoved mover or uncaused cause.

If god is necessary because of a contingent world then it is a contingent god which would make such a contingent world, such a contingent god by our earlier argument would also require a contingent meta-god. And so on ad infinitum.

Hitchens was not up to par on this one. I'm disappointed. When he's on, he's fucking brilliant -- but this was a waste. Maybe he was drunk -- if I had to appear on Fox, I think I'd be wanting some serious medication, myself...

I don't know if Hannity genuinely is a moron, but his market niche is definitely the nether intellectual regions. Sad stuff.

any comments about Hitchens view on Iraq will get your comment deleted.

why? just because it would be off topic? just curious...

I see a lot of complaints about how Hitchens performed. You could look at it several ways.
Hitchens knew perfectly well how both of them would come across, and he was simply resigned to the fact he would get nowhere. He was, after all, dealing with a buffoon.
Hitchens was there only to promote his book, for name recognition. Would a fan of Hannity change their views based on this exchange?

any comments about Hitchens view on Iraq will get your comment deleted. why? just because it would be off topic? just curious...

Yes.

This clip frustrates me, because the 5 minute "interview" on these shows is nothing but soapboxing by the host, and a sound byte version of the guests' point, with no real debate going on. Why even have hitchens on other to say "I'm a christian, and you are wrong... Coming up next, ann coulter gives me a tosser."

user-pic

Yes... I would like to add something I think is very important...

A argument that a lot of religious people use is, how can something come out of nothing? - I am sure you heard of it before!

Well first of all, lets point out the error in their question, how can God have existed for eternity, be outside time and space, or have come to existence, since he himself would be harder to to make sense of than mater/energy popping out of nothing

Now to answering their question: The view of nothing is incorrect, nothing as in the vacuum of space, as been observed to have matter/Energy emerging and diapering again, this is also a quantum theory - basically, when there is complete vacuum there is a chance something like matter may pop into existence, and I'm not talk about the vacuum around us, since this vacuum contains small amount of matter already and has a temperature of a few kelvin, I'm talking about the vacuum that was there before big bang. well think about it for a little, I base this on a documentary on the subject (quantum theory, and matter)

"any comments about Hitchens view on __ will get your comment deleted."

Unbelievable. I think I'm done with this blog (I wonder if he'll delete this too, even though it didn't violate the rules.)

I don't understand why they keep saying that atheists believe something came from nothing. If they are referring to the Big Bang theory, which it appears that they are, something actually came from something:

"In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is a cosmological model in which the universe has been expanding for around 13.7 billion years, starting from a tremendously dense and hot state."

So that implies to me that all matter was actually there already, in a tremendously dense and hot state. I've understood this since I was a kid. So the argument that we believe something came from nothing isn't even valid. Why doesn't anyone ever call them on this?

"basically, when there is complete vacuum there is a chance something like matter may pop into existence"

While this technically does answer the question "how does something emerge from nothing," it isn't a very metaphysically satisfying answer, is it?

Look at it this way: there is clearly a qualitative difference between the kind of nothing in which spontaneous quantum events have a chance of producing matter and plain old nothing nothing, in which such things wouldn't occur. If "nothing" can be said to have rules and behaviors, then it isn't really nothing, but just a very unfamiliar kind of something.

Now, it seems likely that an absolute void is merely an idealized construct, much like a genuinely infinite space. Real physics do not allow for it, and our conception of it is merely a product of faulty induction, but it still leaves one to wonder why there is anything at all.

Quite simply, a believer is not going to be persuaded by this for the exact same reason the complexity argument doesn't persuade nonbelievers. Rather than actually solving the problem, it merely pushes it up one level and declares it solved by rhetorical fiat.

user-pic

If I understand, Wittgenstein let most of the air out of these Heiddeggerian pseudo-questions about be(ginn)ing and Nothing.

Quite simply Nothing is not a Thing. There is no Nothing. Never was. Never could have been.

We don't need to be intimidated by this Neo-Deist Creator nonsensicalisticism.

To believe in (Creator) God, you have to believe in Nothing. Literally.

And feel the annoying amplified feedback between nihilism and..."relief". Bait-and-switch is understatement. Bait and any old all-purpose switch to anything at all is more like it. Use a contradiction as a premise and you can prove anything. Of course the totally fabricated "Judaeo-Christian" God is the current Brooklyn Bridge-to-Nowhere.

And some liberal sensitive feeling types posit an "Abrahamic," (abra-HAM-ic if you include Mormons) God.

Intelligent quantum fluctuation is the bait. The switch is to...

...Neo-Nazi Christian Identity Anglo-Celtic racist Holocaustic essentialism, why not?

Fhhhhhhhht!

It's easier for people to believe in an eternal, sentient being because it gives people a sense of security. Security comes in the form of a stance which can be "God is great" or "God sucks." Without a personality to revere or rail against we only have ourselves and our actions. That scares the shit out of most people.

Also, because all that we know is between birth and death we assume the rest of the universe is the same.

I haven't heard anyone talk about the idea that what we measure as "time" is something that is in flux and that many believe that it slows down and speeds up. The main idea is not a "beginning" of the universe as such, from what I understand, it is more like the quality of a black hole: everything is so condensed that there can be no measure of ANYTHING. Also just as you cannot watch a spaceship cross the event horizon into a black hole, so you cannot find a "point" where the universe became measurable. (layman's understanding... am I in the ballpark?)

user-pic

You said it, when I listen to the Brandenburg cto. in F my life is like a Klein bottle.

There is such a simple response to when these people say, "Well, where did the universe come from if god did not create it? It just happened?"

THEN WHO/WHAT CREATED GOD?

Why can god have always existed but the universe could not have?

It is a bigger leap of faith to say that some incredibly powerful being created the universe than it is to say the universe has always existed.

Why? It further complicates the matter!

RE: what created the universe?

As I understand it, the dominating theory (currently) is that space-time converged at the moment of the big bang. I.e. all energy and matter in the universe were wedged into a singularity, which had no choice but explode and spread out through the void. Where did the singularity come from? An illogical question- until the start of space time (boom), there was no time, without time, causality makes little sense.

I am not sure if I have the facts correct (my head hurts after reading Hawkings & company) but let me assume for a moment I am correct.

If God exists beyond the realm of the physical universe, how does this prove or disprove anything?

Doesn't the theory of the "big bang" sound just a little book like Gensis? Just a wee bit? I think so.

Coincidence? I dunno.

(cue Twilight Zone theme)

Re: Genesis (not Gensis)

I mean the first chapter: God created light, and the cosmos flared into creation.

The stuff about humans is wrong from the start. 1:1 God creates Man & Woman together; 1:2 God creates Woman from Man. Not even at the flood, and already all logic has fallen appart.

Still, I think it is interesting how a few of the "big ideas" still fit, even in 2007.

vonmeth, thank you for stating it so clearly and simply. Dawkins would be proud. In fact, I believe it is he who repeatedly argues that a creator god is a much less likely, and a much more problematic, explanation than the scientific explanations for the creation of the universe.

Doesn't the theory of the "big bang" sound just a little book like Gensis? Just a wee bit? I think so. Coincidence? I dunno. (cue Twilight Zone theme)

Mm. Perhaps it illustrates how the battle is between just faith alone on one hand, and less blind faith on the other.

user-pic

Ever drink Thunderbird from a Klein bottle? Hitch is just very tired.

If God is the Creator, He is, by definition, the skin, the memebrain (sic), the border, the boundary, the Dedekindest* cut of all, between Being and Non-being, between existence and non-existence, ergo He neither exists nor exists not.

So it would be as wrong to claim that He does exist as to claim "atheism".

Therefore, if you believe in a "Creator" (in a boundary between what is, in any sense whatever, sight, sound, touch, dazed confusion, emotion, however vague, has mass, effects, position, has attributes, is an attribute, is oxymoronic, ad intinitum), you can't believe He really "exists," the way anything else does, otherwise He's not really what He is said to be.

?

?

*Dedekind cut: The King of Kings, the Caesar of Caesars is dead, a brutal Brutus ('tis I, cutter of Cuts) hath slain Him, and with Occam's fabulous razor.

They say "we can never understand god." Yet they can understand how god wanted their favourite football team to win the superbowl.

The fact of the matter is...you cannot believe in something which you do not understand.

I just noticed that Hitchens must have done the Bill Maher and Hannity interviews on the same day because he is wearing the same shirt and blazer.

I just noticed that Hitchens must have done the Bill Maher and Hannity interviews on the same day because he is wearing the same shirt and blazer.

No he's just tacky.

Here's a segment of Bullshit where Hitchens talks about Mother Teresa.


…all energy and matter in the universe were wedged into a singularity, which had no choice but explode and spread out through the void.

The Big Bang was an expansion, not an explosion. The image some people seem to have is matter flying outwards from a single point (like an explosion). However, the matter is all actually standing still while space itself expands dragging the matter with it.

Think of it this way: You're sitting in the passenger seat of a car. In this scenario, you are a galaxy (matter) and the car is a fixed point of reference. You are actually sitting still according to that reference frame. However, when viewed externally, ie, from someone along the road, that reference point is moving, and thus, you are too, even though you're not actually moving under your own devices.


As for the mental masturbation of creation, Astronomy blogger Jon Voisey put it best:

    Additionally, every time we see these things assembled, it's done by a human. Thus, if we're truly going to follow the logic through, we must conclude that the universe was created by a human. Not God.
    This is ridiculous and if we can find things that can be created without the help of such things, then the entire argument (everything needing a creator, whether human or magical), falls apart. Thus, we consider something similar to a building. Buildings are used for shelter. In ancient times, caves were used for shelter. But did the cave have to have a designer? Absolutely not. We know fully well that they are typically carved out by flowing water. Thus, the argument that things require a designer crumbles. We can only infer a designer when we have witnessed the creation of such objects in action.

Funny, this argument of creation that 'things look designed and so therefore they must be' sounds a bit like the theists from the first century saying that 'the earth looks flat to us so therefore it must be.'

btw, speaking theoretically I thought I'd make 2 points about what people have said in defense of the "deleting posts threat" (without violating the rules, I hope.)

  1. Should a blogger try and direct commentary and stem the free flow of discussion simply because he disagrees with a point (i.e. that Hitchens has been discredited/isn't worth supporting?)

  2. Was it off topic for Robert Greenwald to prevent Fox news from hosting those democratic debates? The reason wasn't that fox wouldn't draw viewers, but rather that you can't lend Fox the air of credibility it craves. Should he not have talked about Fox's history?

signed, someone who knows that there are better arguments against Hitchens than just "he supported bad thing x so he's wrong about everything."

user-pic

To respond to those who think Hitchens seemed drunk, I'd have to say "nah." He writes better than he speaks, tha'sall. It seems he didn't put forth his best arguments for this show, because, honestly, who in Hannity's fan base would be swayed. Hitchens can save his energy for another interview.

For those who are irritated over the comment restriction Norm set, think about how much space this blog takes up, and how challenging it is to manage. When the comments section moves off-topic, it just clogs up the works. 1gm is Norm's bag of marbles, and he should be able to shoot them the way he wishes. I have a vague recollection of an alternate space/section he included for off-topic posts; this was awhile back; but it didn't last due to lack of interest.

There will be enough posts in the future that someone's pet topic will surface and they can have at it as far as posting responses.

"any comments about Hitchens view on __ will get your comment deleted." Unbelievable. I think I'm done with this blog (I wonder if he'll delete this too, even though it didn't violate the rules.) -- Matt

Oh noes! Please don't go! That'd be such a horrible loss to this blog's little community! I realize it must be a monstrous ordeal for you, to not be able to drag every single Hitchens thread down into a mindless, off-topic, squabble that has been covered a dozen times before, but surely, can't you find it within yourself to ..

Oh, nevermind.

Just fuck off back to your own snazzy little blog, why dontcha? It's ever so fantastic and original and thoughtful -- WAY better than this crummy little thing. I mean gosh -- Kate Hudson went to an NBA game with a boy she was previously thought to have broken up with? Whoa, that's fucking interesting! And those eight-year old images of Oswald and the "Find X" geometry question -- man, that is really original! And an animation of a little girl being humped by a dog.

Man, I think I'll abandon onegoodmove too, and go hang out on your blog instead. It's THAT great. Fuck off.

You know Dzwonka, many may criticize you for having such a sharp tongue, but I thank you for typing what we're all thinking. =)

Hey I didn't advocate going to MY blog, and i certainly didn't criticize anyone for their choice in posts. I'm honored though that, even though you obviously couldn't address my points, you still thought they were important enough to try and slime. And since sliming in this case meant going to my blog, That's all the more meaningful.

"Not being able to drag every single thread into a mindless..." I have never posted on another Hitchens thread here. Besides, it's not a matter of the content, but about who should decide whether we value our commenters enough to let discussions go where they may. If the whole community was really over Hitchens' politics, then you'd expect everyone to ignore posts about it (i.e. you wouldn't have to censor it.) Maybe they would- we wouldn't know.

I have another blog by the way (linked for this post) which is more political and less fun. It's on a Libertarian site (w/ a vibrant comments section) made up of people I disagree with much as a member of the left. I'll tell you this though: I have never been told what to say or what not to.

Thought you said you were done with this blog?

BTW don't come here, act like a dick then promote your own site. It's in very poor taste.

Glad to see everyone stayed on topic here. This is much more interesting than that pesky Iraq stuff.

Thought you said you were done with this blog?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean I won't post follow-ups to my comment. I may cancel my subscription to the times for some reason but continue my discussion about that fact in that letters section.

BTW don't come here, act like a dick then promote your own site. It's in very poor taste.

Of course it would be, if that's what I was doing. As you might notice, someone else criticized my blog (making it pertinent in the sense of this "debate.") Before that I hadn't mentioned it. The other blog I mentioned is hardly "mine" in the sense you mean (they actually hate me on that blog because I'm such a gadfly.) I mention it solely by way of comparison (certainly it'd behoove me more to promote my real site, which I didn't.)

Jimmy- this is what censorship does eh? Suppress sex in the church and you get pedophilia, suppress people's speech and it bubbles over in other ways. Goes to show you shouldn't try to control what people say.

user-pic

What happened is that in a previous thread it was clearly explained why Chrissie's war whoring is relevant to this discussion. Norm's boy was taking a well-deserved beating, so Norm had to step in, lock the thread, and then declare criticism of Snitchens "off topic." Pathetic.

What happened is that in a previous thread it was clearly explained why Chrissie's war whoring is relevant to this discussion. Norm's boy was taking a well-deserved beating.

Just to set the record straight I detest Hitchens view on Iraq as much as anyone. The only relevence his war view has to disucssion of atheism is to use as an ad hominem attack. I decide what is on topic and what is off topic here. There are some here who insist on pushing the issue. They will soon find that they will have to make their comments somewhere else. If anyone wants to discuss the issue send me an email. Further off-topic conversation by the same offenders will get them banned.

What point are they trying to make when they say it takes a greater leap of faith to not believe in a creator?

Yeah, amongst all this overwhelming *evidence that there is a god I'm still holding on to my 'faith' that there isn't.

*by evidence I mean rainbows and fluffy bunnies and all the other wonderful things around us...

It's just a laughable argument.

My favorite part is after refuting every point thrown at you...wait for it..uh oh here it comes...it's the "you're arrogant" or the "you sure are self righteous" personal attack.

Which is why I've coined "Snobwin's Law" that basically works the same as Godwin's law except if it's taken seriously will be the downfall of Faux news. Imagine, no more "hollywood elites" arguments.

every counter to a logical fallacy needs a catchy name and good marketing it seems

user-pic

Anyway guys, you know what I hate? Religious intolerance. It's like Sam Harris says "the problem is that these religious people place discussion of certain issues, like their faith, as being out of bounds for discussion." What I think is great is that Atheists don't even have to deal with this stuff. They know that in open discussion, the truth will out. Secular rationalists know that telling other rationalists what they should or shouldn't so is like "herding cats."

Atheists know that admitting they made a mistake is more important than acting as if they are always right. An Atheist, as we all know, accepts criticism and other views whereas Bill Donahue would try and shout people down and cut their mics.

"Atheists know that admitting they made a mistake is more important than acting as if they are always right. An Atheist, as we all know, accepts criticism and other views whereas Bill Donahue would try and shout people down and cut their mics."

They can even be "better" people, but that won't make them closer to the truth, now will it? The truth is, both Theists and Atheists are too arrogant on their claims. Who are we to know about the Unknowable? Why are Atheists always trying to outsmart the Theists in a subject that, if existent, is outside the margins of "rationality", of "reality", and may never even be dealt with rationally and logically? That your claws are always so tiny in comparison with the infinite. That you are always missing something, or at least there is that chance.

What arrogance do these people contrive just to kick-the-theists-ass-like-they-kicked-ours-centuries-ago?

Just my 2 cents.

"An Atheist, as we all know, accepts criticism and other views"

No I don't know. That's profoundly biased.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives