Why He Stopped Believing
Confessions of a former missionary -- scroll down to read the book, printed on his site.
The myth of individual faithAs a believer I was reluctant to admit that my decision to follow Christ was anyone's but my own. While studying French in Belgium prior to our mission work in Africa, I chafed at my French teacher's suggestion that Charlene and I were merely following in our parents' footsteps in choosing the evangelical Christian faith and becoming missionaries.
...Accident of birth, benefit of doubt (ABBOD)
Several years ago one of my sisters wondered aloud whether she would have been a Christian if she had grown up in a non-Christian country to non-Christian parents. This question, one that had earlier come to my mind, had occasionally given me pause during my years as a believer.
Looking back now as a nonbeliever, I am not sure why I was only mildly troubled by the likelihood that I was a Christian (rather than, for example, a Muslim or a Hindu) because my family and society had influenced me to accept Christianity (rather than Islam or Hinduism). Over time I began to realize that my tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the religion of my parents was no different from the tendency of individuals from other lands and other faiths to give the benefit of the doubt to the religion of their parents.
I call this tendency the Accident of Birth, Benefit of Doubt (ABBOD) principle. I will have more to say concerning this factor in chapter 5. For now I note that I consider this to be one of the most important ingredients for maintaining a religion, whether or not the religion is true.
...Why I Hesitated to Examine my Faith Critically
In virtually every domain we are well served to treat unusual or outlandish claims skeptically. If we hear on the radio that a new diet pill will allow us to shed 50 pounds with no effort, we would be remiss not to investigate what studies have been done to test and approve this new miracle drug before pulling out our credit card. It might turn out that the claims are true, but until an independent scientific study has been conducted, we risk losing our money, time, and possibly health in pursuit of an ineffective or harmful product. Likewise, if a used car salesperson offers us a deal that sounds too good to be true, we had best hire an independent mechanic to inspect it before making the purchase.
As an evangelical Christian I was encouraged to think critically about my beliefs and the beliefs of others as long as I restricted my critical thinking to a biblical framework.
Critical thought is a death sentence for religion
Why else do they work so hard to retrd the progress of knowledge?
lujlp at November 14, 2009 6:32 AM
lujlp writes: Critical thought is a death sentence for religion
Or a venue to a better religion.
Patrick at November 14, 2009 7:07 AM
First of all, there's no such thing as "critical thinking". Critical thinking is just "thinking". Calling it "critical" is just a way to make people think you're very serious and clever... Especially people who haven't paid any attention to you at all yet, and haven't plainly congratulated you for being so handsomely thoughtful.
(1.) Everybody thinks. (2.) Some people are better at it than others. (3.) That's all.
Giving things "critical" (superfluous) names doesn't make you seem sharper... Quite the reverse.
> As an evangelical Christian I was
> encouraged to think critically about
> my beliefs and the beliefs of others
> as long as I restricted my critical
> thinking to a biblical framework.
So they gave you the tools and told you not to use them. And then one day you woke and found yourself in front of a problem, but you had a tool in your hand... ...And?
When people complain like that, I have to wonder, how blessed and effortless do they think life is supposed to be? Yes, little feller.. Someday you're going to have to show some backbone and clarity, and doing so will disappoint people whose approval has come to mean a great deal to you. Isn't that how adulthood is supposed to go? Isn't that the source of every meaningful drama you've ever read throughout history?
A favorite version is from this guy. What I like is that the relevant chapter (just a passage, actually) is very, very brief. He grew up, realized the Catholics were full of shit, thanked them for the challenging education and moved to New York City and conquered the world.
People who moan about the religion of their childhoods are like people in their forties who whine about their parents. The time for such complaints is long, long past...
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 7:11 AM
People in their thirties, too.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 7:32 AM
Even people in their twenties.
(We should probably forgive teenagers for indulgent whimpering.)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 7:33 AM
Crid writes: First of all, there's no such thing as "critical thinking". Critical thinking is just "thinking". Calling it "critical" is just a way to make people think you're very serious and clever... Especially people who haven't paid any attention to you at all yet, and haven't plainly congratulated you for being so handsomely thoughtful.
I'm sure in what passes for thought in your mind, there is no such thing as critical thinking. But for the rest of us there is a myriad of different types of thought. There is the reminisce, the anticipation, the plan, and then there is the kind that analyzes, evaluates, and changes when necessary. This latter type is called "critical thinking."
Patrick at November 14, 2009 8:44 AM
lujlp writes: Critical thought is a death sentence for religion
Or a venue to a better religion. - Patrick
True enough though I can only think of one example in all of human history
And quite frankly budisms afterlifem sound more oring than christianity's
lujlp at November 14, 2009 8:50 AM
> This latter type is called
> "critical thinking."
Yeah... Right. The "latter type". Sure.
This is all about looking cool in front of the other kids while differentiating oneself from them.
Besides, ever since you put another name on this comment, I've been convinced that you don't actually exist. You're like the 'commenter' Elisabeth Irwin who who used to show up at Seipp's blog a few years ago, who turned out to be just a practical joke. Nobody could be so self-righteous and silly in real life.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 9:05 AM
I was encouraged to think critically about my beliefs and the beliefs of others as long as I restricted my critical thinking to a biblical framework.
The same is true of the Darwinists, materialists, and atheists of various stripes. Just substitute a different word for "Biblical" in that sentence.
The true free thinkers are those, like Nietzsche or Leo Strauss, who dared to truly think critically about everything - including the finiteness of their own understanding.
Engineer at November 14, 2009 9:27 AM
You got me, Crid. I don't exist. Much like a few amino acids came together in the primordial ooze, I am a few random bytes that came together in the vast realm of the internet and gained sentience. Scary how fast I evolved, isn't it? After all, it took humanity hundreds of thousands of years to reach this point, and I could have only come into being some time after the internet was created.
In five years, I'll have assumed control of the planet. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Patrick at November 14, 2009 9:58 AM
Gee, this reads just like other fora, where how someone thinks about religion is challenged. Egos puff up, and it becomes a poster-to-poster argument.
Simply put, most people have no idea how they form beliefs. They just do it, and all the time, redefining "success" when they can. Amy sees this constantly. I imagine she's read, "He's stopped beating me" once or twice, from someone rationalizing away a need for unpleasant action.
But I do know how you form beliefs. When you know this about yourself, you'll see why and how you can be fanned by smooth talkers of every kind.
Radwaste at November 14, 2009 10:46 AM
> I am a few random bytes
Ain't it the truth?
> Egos puff up, and it becomes a
> poster-to-poster argument.
That's not true! I dislike Patrick (or, "Patrick") even without ego! (How did the other guy's name get affixed to the end of that comment last month, anyway?)
PS Raddy- Your blog post is wrong right out of the gate: There's no reason to think people are "the leading lifeform on Earth" but that it flatters us to say so. For a guy who wants to carp about 'puffed egos'....
Sagan used to say the mode of life on Earth is microbial. Sagan is said to have smoked marijuana as he suffered from cancer.
Gould used to say it was all about beetles, since they're so diverse.. But then, he was a Harvard Professor of Entomology, so that's what he would say, isn't it??!?! Gould is said to have smoked marijuana as he suffered from cancer.
Several years ago, a white paper by the Rand Corporation speculated that in the "nuclear winter" predicted to follow a full missile warhead exchange between the United States and the (then) Soviet Union, Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards was likely to be one of the few surviving organisms. Richards is said to have smoked marijuana as he thrived in perfect health.
So whatever the "leading form of life on Earth" actually is, we can be certain that it's not human.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 11:42 AM
Thanks, Crid, for making my point.
While you puffed up, I hope you didn't miss how you form beliefs.
That's the point, not your quibble.
Radwaste at November 14, 2009 12:59 PM
Thinking clearly about humanity's place on the globe is not a "quibble."
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 1:10 PM
lujlp says: "Critical thought is a death sentence for religion."
This has been demonstrated to be false time and time again. The fact is that very smart people disagree about religion. When I was in college I was in the audience at a debate between two prominent philosophers on the topic of "Does God exist?" This week I read of a similar debate earlier this year where Dr. William Craig trounced Christopher Hitchens (google for Craig Hitchens debate). I once attended a talk given by Dr. Alvin Plantinga, whose published work has ended use of the "argument from evil" by serious philosophers. To summarize, many very smart religious people engage in "critical thought" to a degree that you or I will never be able to.
Radwaste's blog post and the ABBOD principle are generally correct: people form beliefs out of experiences, not for scientifically or statistically valid reasons. That's why I don't believe people when they tell me that they only believe what is rational. Everybody believes that their own belief system is rational, because according to their experiences, filtered through our confirmation bias and other built-in cognitive fallacies, it is.
Pseudonym at November 14, 2009 2:46 PM
> google for Craig Hitchens debate
Nope, give us a link, and tell us what the "trounce" part was.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 3:18 PM
Crid, your anecdotes suggest that the leading life form on earth just may be marijuana.
Axman at November 14, 2009 4:03 PM
Hopefully it makes it through the filters: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230. That's the first google search result. From that page, which is a firsthand account written by an atheist:
From the rest of the article, and from other accounts of the debate, it sounds like Hitchens was not able to back up the assertions he made in his book _god Is Not Great_.
Pseudonym at November 14, 2009 4:21 PM
I'm a Catholic, and I have no doubt that I continue to identify with that denomination because of my childhood, but I don't think that that's so much about lack of thinking critically as it is that it is what I am comfortable with (I compare it to eating turkey on Thanksgiving- I wouldn't be less thankful without it, but it feels right because that's what I'm used to, and I like it and see no reason to change.)
Deep down, I think that all religions are probably pretty far off from what is objectively so; they're cultural manifestations of something too big for us to understand. There is no possible explanation for the universe that truly stands up to objective critical reasoning (that goes for the atheistic sorts, too), so we're just doing the best that we can to get as close as we can to understanding it all.
Lyssa at November 14, 2009 4:29 PM
> That's the first google search result.
Right, so there's no particular "trouncing" that caught your attention... No particular argument well-made or clearly answered.
> sounds like Hitchens was not able
> to back up the assertions he made
> in his book _god Is Not Great_.
Why would you say that unless you actually knew what was said? (My copy of GING's autographed, but I'll lend it to you if you promise to read it.)
My favorite moment with Hitch and this gentleman is in this clip. Cut and paste this into your browser address line, and it'll take you straight to the candy at 8:20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtRHMlNH9AA#t=8m14s
I don't actually know which person on the dais Craig is, but I've watched about ten of those book tour debates over the last two years, and nobody's ever really landed a glove on Hitch's chin/
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 5:11 PM
Lyssa writes.....>>>I'm a Catholic, and I have no doubt that I continue to identify with that denomination because of my childhood, but I don't think that that's so much about lack of thinking critically as it is that it is what I am comfortable with (I compare it to eating turkey on Thanksgiving- I wouldn't be less thankful without it, but it feels right because that's what I'm used to, and I like it and see no reason to change.)
Deep down, I think that all religions are probably pretty far off from what is objectively so; they're cultural manifestations of something too big for us to understand. There is no possible explanation for the universe that truly stands up to objective critical reasoning (that goes for the atheistic sorts, too), so we're just doing the best that we can to get as close as we can to understanding it all.
Well said. Our environment influences us all. The routine, as it be, we see over and over affects what we think. The comfort level we gain from those routines affects our future choices. Why do some people change because of critical thinking (or plain old thinking, as some would put it) while others don't? That is a great question that probably involves a lot of variables. I have my doubts it is simply because of better thinking.
TW at November 14, 2009 5:31 PM
Critical thinking is just "thinking".
Most people when using the term critical thinking are referring to a purposeful process of examining something. It's a particular approach that uses logic and deduction. Hell, it's got its own Wikipedia entry.
There are a lot of other things that are thinking processes that are not critical thinking. Induction is not critical thinking. A performer thinking about what notes he's playing isn't engaging in critical thinking. And so on.
Critical thinking is just "thinking". Calling it "critical" is just a way to make people think you're very serious and clever.
Sure some people use "critical thinking" that way. But that doesn't make the term meaningless.
Whatever at November 14, 2009 5:49 PM
"I don't think that that's so much about lack of thinking critically as it is that it is what I am comfortable with (I compare it to eating turkey on Thanksgiving- I wouldn't be less thankful without it, but it feels right because that's what I'm used to, and I like it and see no reason to change."
What if I put a gun on your head and demand you that you switch to tofu as I believe in animal right? I think you would switch to tofu although it is not comfortable to you. Why? Your life is more important than eating a turkey meal.
However, many religious people chose death instead of denouncing their gods throughout the history. And many more will in the future.
I don't call that comfort issue. It is sheer madness. Their absolute conviction that my god is better than your god is very arrogant when you got nothing to back it up except an old book written by the people, who believed the earth is flat. Let's not forget that marihuana was also legal back then.
Chang at November 14, 2009 5:59 PM
There were arguments well-made, by Craig. None were clearly answered by Hitchens. In response, none were well-made by Hitchens.
Here is another firsthand report. Perhaps the most damning critique of Hitchens in this debate, from a philosophical point of view, is illustrated in point 10: he never attempted to argue that his worldview is true.
Well, here's a case where someone has.
Now, Craig is an excellent debater, and it's not shameful to lose to him in a debate (as Dr. Antony Flew, world-renowned atheist philosopher, also did, in 1998, a debate that I attended.) At the first link I gave, the poster said that Craig might be the best theist debater in the world. When I saw him speak, he was well-organized and well-prepared.
Craig has been doing debates like this for years. But as this post's link suggests, that should give his opponents an advantage, because they know ahead of time what he is likely to say. When I attempted to find out if he has ever lost, the phrase "has william lane craig ever lost a debate" was suggested to me by the google search autocomplete feature.
Pseudonym at November 14, 2009 6:23 PM
> Most people when using the term critical
> thinking are referring to a
> purposeful process...
Poseurs all. Purposeful poseurs....
> Hell, it's got its own Wikipedia entry.
As do voodoo and astrology.
(Hey, that was fun to type! As do voodoo!)
> that doesn't make the term meaningless.
It makes it telling.
• • • • •
> Well, here's a case where someone has.
WHAT, Soody? What point? What is this imaginary victory of yours? What was alleged and what was disproved? Speak, son! Go! Specifics!
> Here is another firsthand report.
No, give us a transcript, not a review from a partisan. Make a case.
> suggested to me by the google
> search autocomplete
Golly, you've identified a compelling new evidentiary mechanism!
Try this one: "Religion is bu"
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 7:02 PM
"Thinking clearly about humanity's place on the globe is not a "quibble.""
Sure it is. You find fault with my description because you think something else might survive us. Meanwhile, assorted groups state that we are hunting and building other lifeforms into extinction, poisoning the air and water, and can not only nuke the whole planet into sterility but are causing climate change.
Meanwhile, we have put probes in orbit around Mercury and Saturn, build processors with switches just five atoms think, investigate the structure of DNA...
...and the big arguments are about money, not ability.
Is there another lifeform that is doing all that that I have missed?
Get a look at Darwiniana.org. If a gamma-ray burst wipes us all out except for the waterbears, they will eventually evolve into a new version of us, with abstract thought and therefore a robust fantasy life.
I'm not pulling an ego trip. I make the distinction between stimulus-response and planned action to put us on top. I know it's temporary, for the not-the-least reason that by definition, we are a transient species!
Radwaste at November 14, 2009 8:58 PM
> You find fault with my description
> because you think something else
> might survive us
No, I'm absolutely certain that many, many life forms, the majority, will survive us. Cataclysmic comic books to the contrary, it's just not within mankind's capacity to kill every living thing, even with great effort. The planet teems.
And even if it didn't, I don't see that this (imaginary) capacity for destruction would distinguish us as the "leading lifeform".
> Is there another lifeform that
> is doing all that that I have
> missed?
Is there another life form that would give a rat's ass?
And by the way, can we drop "lifeform", with all its Star Trek implications, and just go with "species"? It's an old, tested favorite, it's never let us down.
> they will eventually evolve into a
> new version of us
Nothing ever did. I've said this before: The giraffe thinks it's all about the neck, the elephant thinks it's all about the trunk, and the college-educated human thinks it's all about the postgraduate degree. You think your own favorite qualities are the destiny of the cosmos. Such a perspective is indistinguishable from religious belief: You think it's all about you. But those qualities are instead a fleetingly young, gasping gamble in a casino built on corruption, mutation and failure... And death's unceasing churn. We're only the latest, not the best.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 14, 2009 9:50 PM
First of all, there's no such thing as "critical thinking". Critical thinking is just "thinking". Calling it "critical" is just a way to make people think you're very serious and clever...
What a steaming heap of self-important ordure.
Among the varieties of thinking: regretful, wistful, affectionate, angry, analytical, and, yes, critical.
In crid world: There are no sports cars, only cars.
PS Raddy- Your blog post is wrong right out of the gate: There's no reason to think people are "the leading lifeform on Earth" but that it flatters us to say so.
Our ability to call ourselves the leading lifeform makes us the leading lifeform.
By definition.
Hey Skipper at November 14, 2009 11:02 PM
How many times have you conversationally used the word "ordure" in the last five years, say when out with your wife and another couple for barbecue? How did it go over at the table?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 15, 2009 12:08 AM
"Such a perspective is indistinguishable from religious belief: You think it's all about you. But those qualities are instead a fleetingly young, gasping gamble in a casino built on corruption, mutation and failure... And death's unceasing churn. We're only the latest, not the best."
Word.
Chang at November 15, 2009 4:02 AM
"Is there another life form that would give a rat's ass?"
Thank you for supporting my point.
"And by the way, can we drop "lifeform", with all its Star Trek implications, and just go with "species"? It's an old, tested favorite, it's never let us down."
I recognize your attempt to make this thread your own, but that would be inaccurate because individuals are capable in ways that the species they represent are not. There are humans that do nothing but breed. Some of them have been doing that for millennia, and are therefore superior to, say, a California or NYC resident dependent on modern support systems. Right?
You just continue to quibble about a part of my post that is not the point. This is so important to you that you didn't even notice I acknowledged we are a transitional species - as all are.
And so I see your doubt that we can actually bring the whole shebang to ruin, and that you claim that many others will survive us. Sorry, old chap, but whatever taught you that survivability was the last, best measure of achievement? A schoolyard loss to some bully?
Can you show me another species (there, I'm using your term, you're validated!) that loses so many of the fruits of its labor in natural disaster?
Geez, what a waste of time you are today!
To show you and others once again what my real point here is - it's this: you have a process by which you form beliefs, and you are generally unaware of it.
Radwaste at November 15, 2009 6:11 AM
"Critical thought is a death sentence for religion. Why else do they work so hard to retrd the progress of knowledge?"
Somewhere, well-educated, devout Jesuits better trained in science, logic and critical thinking than 99% of the population, read that post and chuckle amongst themselves, before resuming their customary humility.
Spartee at November 15, 2009 6:11 AM
Spartee:
Somewhere, well-educated, devout Jesuits better trained in science, logic and critical thinking than 99% of the population, read that post and chuckle amongst themselves, before resuming their customary humility.
What religion are Jesuits? Why are they not some other reason?
How many times have you conversationally used the word "ordure" in the last five years ...
Not once, come to think of it.
No mystery, though, why your self-important puffery brought it instantly to mind.
Hey Skipper at November 15, 2009 7:10 AM
What religion are Jesuits? Why are they not some other religion?
Hey Skipper at November 15, 2009 7:11 AM
They're on the pages I've linked. If you need me to cut and paste:
In other words, Hitchens responded inadequately and incompletely.
Item 17 describes how Hitchens fails to address Craig's assertion three, that the existence of God provides the most plausible explanation for the existence of absolute morality:
That poster concludes:
Do you believe me yet?
For further reading, here is a series of posts examining the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Common Sense Atheism is a great blog. One of the things that frustrates me about online theological discussions is how unconvincing critics of Christianity are, and this guy does a much better job.
What do you have against Google? I think it's amusing that lots of other people made the same search I did, since it never occurred to me to look for Craig's debate losses until yesterday. I did find some, which you're welcome to take on faith or not.
Pseudonym at November 15, 2009 8:35 AM
"To summarize, many very smart religious people engage in "critical thought" to a degree that you or I will never be able to."
I happen to be one of those smart religious people, who possess the "critical thought".
I analyzed the Bible and I found out one sure fire way to get into heaven. "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him." Luke 12:10. This is where I stopped reading the Bible and started my critical thinking process.
Jesus said that everyone can get into heaven and all the sins will be forgiven as long as you do not speak ill of Holy Spirit.
I do not know what Holy Spirit is as I stopped reading the Bible halfway. I never spoke ill or good about it because it does not mean anything to me. But I have a feeling you know what Holy Spirit is. And I think you might have thought of something bad about the Holy Spirit unconsciously when your girlfriend dumped you back in high school.
You will see that all of the atheists have a better chance to go to heaven than the Mother Theresa because they usually don't say anything bad about the Holy Spirit. They might say bad things about the God or Jesus. But they simply do not know what the Holy Spirit is.
Chang at November 15, 2009 10:29 AM
The first argument is a cosmological argument, based on the origin of the universe.
So what exactly is that argument then?
The second was a version of the teleological argument that emphasizes the improbability of the existence of a universe inhabited by human beings, given the evidence of both physics and biology.
So because something is mathematically improbable, never mind the fact that given the sheer size of the known universe mathematically improbable events occur regularly, a magic man must have willed everything into existence with the power of his mind?
That is without a doubt the dumbest fucking argument I ever heard
Third, he argued that the best explanation for the existence of objective moral facts is the existence of God.
Explain these phenomena which are/were considered morally acceptable under various religious doctrines throughout time. Slavery, rape, torture, murder, genital mutilation, cannibalism, human sacrifice, prostitution, drug use.
If there is a god and he is the source of moral objectivity why has humanity's definition of right and wrong, of moral and immoral changed constantly as time winds on? And why are all of the thing I listed above considered morally wrong when they are condoned, indeed wholeheartedly endorsed, by the god you worship?
Fourth, he stated three sets of historical facts
what facts?
that are uniformly accepted by New Testament scholars,
Really, not one dissenting voice of the hundred of thousands of religious scholars? EVER?
which together provide ample evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, implying the occurrence of an important miracle and hence the existence of God.
If there is "ample" evidence that a man claiming to be god rose from the dead and ascended to heaven then why does it only "imply" gods existence?
Each argument was constructed as a valid deductive argument, so that rational denial of the conclusion would require a direct challenge to one or more of the premises in each argument.
None of your hero’s arguments so far seem to be standing up why don’t you give us these three statement to see for ourselves?
His fifth point was that belief in God can as well be grounded in direct experience of God, though this is not to be confused with an argument for the existence of God.
So belief in god is obtained thru experiencing god.
But experiencing god, while giving belief, doesn’t give proof of his existence.
If he doesn’t exist how can you experience him?
If you can experience him, then how can he still not exist
Seriously if this is the caliber of his mental powers why 5yr old niece could run circles around him
So to recap you have given us the following
Arguments For The Existence of GOD
1. (its really good but I wont tell you what it is)
2. The odds of life happening are so miniscule, even though the universe is so large that long shot odds occur regularly, that the only LOGICAL explanation is magic
3. If god didn’t exist man would not be capable of understanding that some things are always wrong no matter what (the fact that those things we now consider to be objectively wrong under all circumstances are approved of and endorsed by the god we worship will be ignored)
4. Three facts which are definite proof, because no one, ever, in the history of mankind, has ever disagreed with them(they are really that good) - those facts being
A. (its really good but I wont tell you what it is)
B. (its really good but I wont tell you what it is)
C. (its really good but I wont tell you what it is)
5. Evidence of god is not proof of god
I got to tell you, argument #5 is kind of counterproductive to the argument that god exists, I wonder why you insisted on including it
lujlp at November 15, 2009 10:52 AM
"They might say bad things about the God or Jesus. But they simply do not know what the Holy Spirit is."
One and the same.
momof4 at November 15, 2009 11:01 AM
I find it revealing that the pro-religionists here at least try to call on logic and civility when making their arguments, while the atheists' primary tactic seems to be gainsaying, mocking, and loudly bleating the mantra "But I can't SEE God!", as if that question is not addressed in the Bible itself.
Huge cluebird: No, we can't PROVE God exists. Granted. But so what if we think it's fairly likely, and a beautiful teaching? Does that hurt you? And no, don't pull out the old canard of religion has killed more people than anything else". Ever heard of WWII? WWI? The Napoleonic wars? The conquests of Caesar? Where are the religious motives in those, outside of absurd conspiracy theories?
John M. at November 15, 2009 11:07 AM
"One and the same."
Are you telling me Jesus or God is the same as the Holy Spirit? Then, why do you call it Holy Spirit?
Under your explanation, you cannot possibly say bad things about Jesus and good things about Holy Spirit because the both are the same.
Then, either Luke or you must be wrong about this. But the both of you cannot be right.
Chang at November 15, 2009 11:37 AM
Answer here. Summary:
The person who wrote that has a series of posts examining this, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, in detail, in order to eventually refute it.
Accepting the KCA as true and starting from deism changes the flavor of subsequent inquiries: instead of asking "is there a God?" one is able to ask "which God, if any, is the God?" One can consider the implications of the attributes "beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful" and look for contradictions between them and the claims of various world religions (as the argument from evil does.)
I guess you're smarter than Hitchens, then.
That's a good point. Frequently in debates of this type, the participants use words like "reasonable" or "plausible" instead of "proof". This lowers the bar considerably.
Pseudonym at November 15, 2009 11:38 AM
You think your own favorite qualities are the destiny of the cosmos.
Not true! My kind pairs off and has one kid, two at most. The destiny of the cosmos is the children of professional athletes and brain dead religious zealots. They make babies like there's no tomorrow. Clearly, evolution favors them!
Whatever at November 15, 2009 11:46 AM
Here’s a little tip for you too, rational emotional devoid arguments don’t work on people who are passionate about their religion, so using humor to highlight the incongruities, contradictions and hypocrisies of their faiths and dogma are the only way to bypass the emotional shield people use to protect their world view
And what is civil on any level of the argument that you have a special relationship with an all powerful being who is going to torture the rest of us for all of eternity for not doing what you tell us to do? And thinking what you tell us to think?
Most atheists don’t say that there is definitively no god what so ever, we just happen to believe in one less god then you.
You cant see Allah, Thor, Zeus, Lloth, Helm or Osiris but you don’t believe they exist, why is that?
How is your disbelief in they mythologies of other cultures any different, less sanctimonious then our disbelief in your mythology?
Why is it wrong to ask that you prove your god is the true god before we live by its edicts?
Why is it so hard for your most powerful being in all of existence to prove he is something more then the figment of primitive mans imagination, as you believe the other gods of the various pantheons to be?
lujlp at November 15, 2009 11:49 AM
Poseurs all. Purposeful poseurs....
Your failure to explain how my examples of thinking that do not have the important deductive characteristics of critical thinking = cannot refute what I wrote.
Whatever at November 15, 2009 11:50 AM
You put up the cosmilogical argument, now how about the other three
lujlp at November 15, 2009 11:51 AM
> Thank you for supporting my point.
Silly circuitous argument: We're the best because we're the ones who care that we're the best. Elephants think we're fools for not admiring their trunks... Hell, even granite boulders wonder why we wiggle around so much. You're certain that sentience is the future, but you have no reason to think so but that it flatters you.
> There are humans that do nothing
> but breed. Some of them have been
> doing that for millennia, and are
> therefore superior to, say, a
> California or NYC resident dependent
> on modern support systems. Right?
Raddy, you're a bright guy, but as happens all to often I have no idea what point you're trying to make. There's no one on Earth who, in any literal way, does "nothing but breed". Allowing for expressive wiggle room in that figure of speech doesn't make "therefore superior" apply to anything which precedes it.
"Modern support systems"?
If you don't want to say "species" you can say "individuals", whether you're talking about beetles or Belgians.
> You just continue to quibble
> about a part of my post...
That one part is spectacularly, threateningly, cancerously wrong, while...
> ...that is not the point.
...the part you're proud of is unremarkable. Sure, people aren't always aware of how their consciousness works. We knew that: Freud made the case a good long time ago. If there are revelatory implications for the nuance you're obsessed with, we know you can be trusted to share them.
> I acknowledged we are a
> transitional species -
> as all are.
We're not transitional, we're just here now, and something else will be here later. This is not a procedure or a program or an enterprise. You seem certain that evolution is working towards some destination, a perfection that will be had one way or another... This is not the case. Species struggle to survive: When things change, they die. (If another organism benefits from those freed resources, then that organism's own struggle continues... for the moment.)
You think of life as something moving up; but it's only moving out. As Gould put it, it's not a ladder or a tree (to climb), it's a bush that keeps branching.
> whatever taught you that
> survivability was the last,
> best measure of achievement?
Achievement is your fixation (you schoolyard coward), not mine. I'm not the one prattling about how magnificent we are for having launched interplanetary probes.
> Can you show me another species [...]
> that loses so many of the fruits of
> its labor in natural disaster?
I can't show you one that doesn't.
> Geez, what a waste of time
> you are today!
And yet here you are. (See also, Loojy's thoughts here.)
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 15, 2009 11:56 AM
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
fair enough
2. The universe began to exist.
Assumes facts not in evidence, mankind has barely begun to scratch the surface of science and the answers it might hold, for all we know the universe has always existed and is as timeless and uncaused as the god further down in this argument, the point is we don’t know and assuming a magic man did it is pointless, stupid, and encourages people not to better with what little time they have in this life
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
As I just refuted argument #2 this argument is invalid
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginning less, changeless, immaterial, timeless, space less, and enormously powerful.
Assumes facts not in evidence, see reply to augment #2. Even assuming that the universe was created by a god that is not evidence in and of itself that god itself was not created by some other even more powerful being
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginning less, changeless, immaterial, timeless, space less, and enormously powerful.
Flawed conclusion as there is no evidence that the universe was created out of nothing, nor is there any evidence it was done so by an uncreated all powerful god. Any such evidence that could definitively prove the universe was created by a god would, in and of itself, be proof of such a god. And with such proof we wouldn’t even be having this conversation
The very fact that we are having this conversation is proof that there is no proof of gods existence
Isnt circular logic fun?
lujlp at November 15, 2009 12:07 PM
Chang, I certainly didn't mean that a religious belief is as insignificant as what one eats on a certain day; it's not at all. (But I'm sure that you know that). I certainly can't say that I would or would not say anything with a gun to my head; that's not a test that I'm hoping to take.
Who said anything about one's god being better than another's? Certainly no me, but you are so stuck on trying to prove yourself better than anyone who believes in a higher power that you are making up arguments to rail against.
Lyssa at November 15, 2009 12:25 PM
Chang, I certainly didn't mean that a religious belief is as insignificant as what one eats on a certain day; it's not at all. (But I'm sure that you know that). I certainly can't say that I would or would not say anything with a gun to my head; that's not a test that I'm hoping to take.
Who said anything about one's god being better than another's? Certainly no me, but you are so stuck on trying to prove yourself better than anyone who believes in a higher power that you are making up arguments to rail against.
Lyssa at November 15, 2009 12:25 PM
> If you need me to cut and paste:
No, we need you to think and type... On your own. All you're saying is that "These other guys had this great conversation!" I ask how you know it was great, and you say "Because they told me so!", as if we should trust them...or you. But you're not even offering a transcript. All we get is quotations from others about Hitchens, like:
> I was only able to distinguish two,
> since they were not enumerated clearly.
This seems unlikely. Hitchens has been called one of the finest polemicists of his generation... It's far more likely that your dear reporter simply couldn't keep up.
If you, "Pseudonym", want to have a discussion about meaningful points, we'll all be ready. But meantime, your removal from the process, both by quoted rhetoric and bashful nickname, is too trivial to bother with...
...And Jesus Fuck, is it boring.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 15, 2009 12:35 PM
> my examples of thinking that do
> not have the important deductive
> characteristics
"Important deductive characteristics"!
I love that! You know a "thinker" has really become "critical" when he or she has the "Important deductive characteristics"!
Poised in a line at Starbucks on Sunset Boulevard, a Hollywood agent sucks up to starlet through his Iphone: Your characteristics are importantly deductive today, Babe! Your thinking is going totally critical!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 15, 2009 12:39 PM
I'm still waiting on those three irrefutable proofs that no one has ever, ever, ever, disagreed with.
And hoping that they aren’t as simplistic as that origin of the universe argument
lujlp at November 15, 2009 12:58 PM
And yet, two eyewitness reports say so.
Cite?
I agree that he's popular among lay atheists.
Pseudonym at November 15, 2009 1:01 PM
> two eyewitness reports say so.
Eyewitnesses to a discussion of extreme –perhaps the most extreme– partisanship. Again, neither of them thought to include a transcript, a failure I regard as a revealing weakness in such a "report". You're saying 'Trust me'; I don't.
> Cite?
I was there, and can find many, many more in a very short time, if you like. It's interesting that you'd offer that parry with no shield but my own (dwindling) good faith on your arm.
> I agree that he's popular among
> lay atheists.
The blessing of your agreement is draining its currency.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 15, 2009 1:32 PM
"I agree that he's popular among lay atheists."
Are you a lay Christians?
My shot at going to heaven is better than yours. I do not know what Holy Ghost is. But you do.
I bet you thought or said something bad about it consciously or unconsciously in your weakest moment.
Chang at November 15, 2009 1:46 PM
Gee, Crid, don't miss the point: you have a process by which you form beliefs, and you are generally unaware of that.
I'm curious about what you think the most advanced creatures on Earth are. I used a pretty staightforward description: "People are now the leading lifeform on Earth because of their powers of thought, including the ability for advanced abstraction." You're just going off on that because you see many reasons to hate humanity, and that's pretty much it. You're not disturbing me more than the usual evangelist going on about how we wouldn't be anything without three kinds of spook to watch over us.
So go ahead. Deny that achievement is of no merit in making the assessment I did. When you do, of course, you're making the argument that a pig is a dog is a Crid. I don't think so. I think you have abilities that others don't, and that you have some obligations to your fellow man, that with great power comes great responsibility.
But don't miss the point. You're already making up your own stories about what I post.
Perhaps you should study biology a bit. Yes, you are a member of a transitional species. There is no indication whatsoever that species development halted with us. You have toenails, auricular muscles, and get goose bumps to puff up non-existant fur and so forth.
Maybe my ties to the forest are shorter. I can wiggle my ears one at a time...
Radwaste at November 15, 2009 2:08 PM
Seriously Pseudonym wheer are those "three sets of historical facts that are uniformly accepted by New Testament scholars"
lujlp at November 15, 2009 2:08 PM
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The "Forgotten Realms" universe of road runner and Willie Cyote began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Forgotten Realms universe has a cause.
4. If the Forgotten Realms universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginning less, changeless, immaterial, timeless, space less, and enormously powerful.
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the ACME universe exists, who sans the ACME universe is beginning less, changeless, immaterial, timeless, space less, and enormously powerful.
All bow down and worship before the All Powerful God Ed Greenwood.
If you would like to email your paryers to god(Ed Greenwood) you can contact his holiness here
http://www.candlekeep.com/
I gaurentee thet you are more likley to get a response from him than from your god
lujlp at November 15, 2009 3:16 PM
Crap, was watching Looney Toons when I got this idea, but then realized that Chuck Jones died a few years ago and therefore couldnt be an all powerful god
Seems I didnt finsh swapping out all the ACMEs I pasted in front of the word universe
lujlp at November 15, 2009 3:19 PM
Just take the most fundamental, basic, and for you indisputable aspects of your worldview (in its ethical and/or metaphysical aspects).
That's YOUR religion. You are fooling yourself if you claim that it's somehow more reasonable than someone else's more theocentric religion.
You might point out that someone's god seems not to answer prayers, but then they might tell you that your religion leaves you without any kind of teleology, ethics, or metaphysics. ie. you can't tell me why we are here, how we should conduct ourselves, or what meaning it all has.
Engineer at November 15, 2009 3:33 PM
The point, Engineer, is I don’t try to.
I don’t try to make people believe what I believe, I only ask that they prove what they believe when what they believe influences how I live my life.
You want to believe a magic man lives in the sky? Fine.
You want to believe the magic man wants you to behave a certain way? Fine
You want to believe the magic man wants you to change the laws of a secular country so everyone has to do what you think he wants us to do? Go fuck yourself,
Because unless you can prove that the magic man exists and that you know what he wants us to do. Because this is the point at which we have a problem. Once you as a believer start going around telling everyone else how to live their lives, or even passing judgment on how they live their lives, you had damn well better have something other than your “faith” in a mentally diseased rapist zombie to get me to change my mind.
Especially when you are just as detracting of the tens, if not hundereds, of thousands of gods currently and formerly worshiped by humans as athiests are of your one
Really Engineer what is th difference between not beliving in 9,999 gods and not believing in 10,000?
lujlp at November 15, 2009 3:52 PM
Also what is teology?
If you meant theology, then yes I have none as there is no god - kin of a no brainier on how that works out
And if your ethics are dependant upon threats and promises of reward, how ethical are you really?
I cant tell you why we are here in a philosophical sense, but neither can religion, it offers up ideas and questions, but until there is proof they are not answers
As to how we should conduct ourselves? Harm each other as little as possible throughout our lives, help others when possible, enjoy it while it lasts.
Now if I can do that in less than 20 words (and without once endorsing the death penalty for rape victims) why cant the major religions?
lujlp at November 15, 2009 4:01 PM
> don't miss the point:
I didn't. You missed this passage:
| ...the part you're proud of is
| unremarkable. Sure, people aren't
| always aware of how their
| consciousness works. We knew
| that: Freud made the case a good
| long time ago.
Everyone understands what you're saying. 'K? We grok. I promise! You can stop repeating it as if it were new: It's a 19th-century insight (but the kind people have known about for millenia).
> I'm curious about what you think
> the most advanced creatures on
> Earth are.
Again with the ladder-like thinking.
Raddy, there's nothing to "advance" to... "Advanced" isn't a category in evolution. We have only "adapted".* And for adaptation, there's no awards banquet and no Lucite trophy... The only prize is survival. Nobody knows what's supposed to come next.... Unless you believe in God. Do you believe in God, Raddy? Apparently you do... You think this is all going towards a specific outcome.
When we're through, nature will –without any assistance from us– find something else to do with our ephemera. If you really want to have a hand in what comes next, think carefully about which to fuck, a tall blond vs. a short brunette. That's about all the say you'll have in the matter.
> "People are now the leading
> lifeform on Earth because of
> their powers of thought,
> including the ability for
> advanced abstraction."
Your argument is tautological. 'We're the best because we're not the others.' I can't believe a guy who handles nuclear materials is so confused on this point.
To what are we "leading"? Who, or what, follows?
> So go ahead. Deny that
> achievement is of no merit in
> making the assessment I did.
I literally can't tell if your double negative was intentional. CLARITY, Son... Clarity.
_____________________________________
* Two meanings in that sentence... I hope you got 'em both.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 15, 2009 4:34 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "a discussion of extreme partisanship"; it was a formal debate before an audience.
When someone on Hitchens' side says he lost, it's more reliable.
Here is another person's set of detailed notes about the debate.
Another set of notes is at the "official debate blog" at doesgodexistdebate dot blogspot dot com (let's see if that avoids the spam trap.) This page includes actual quotes that confirm the other reports.
I think there's no transcript online because someone is selling a DVD. I've heard of that happening in the past.
Pseudonym. at November 15, 2009 6:35 PM
> it was a formal debate
> before an audience.
WE DON'T WANT SUMMARIES. WE WANT EVIDENCE. WHY ARE YOU EXPECTING PEOPLE TO TRUST YOU?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 15, 2009 6:45 PM
9 hours now and still no reply Pseudonym?
Dont want me tearing apart those last three "irrefutable" argument like it did the others?
lujlp at November 15, 2009 7:26 PM
WE DON'T WANT SUMMARIES. WE WANT EVIDENCE. WHY ARE YOU EXPECTING PEOPLE TO TRUST YOU? -crid
Good question
Better question, why should we trust your trust of people we dont know and have never interacted with?
lujlp at November 15, 2009 7:29 PM
> Good question
Not really, he's just pissing me off. He's not taking any position of his own about anything Hitchens may have said, he just keeps saying "Well, those guys say he lost the debate..."
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 15, 2009 7:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/11/14/why_he_stopped.html#comment-1677584">comment from Crid [CridComment @ gmail]WE DON'T WANT SUMMARIES. WE WANT EVIDENCE. WHY ARE YOU EXPECTING PEOPLE TO TRUST YOU?
If you do manage to come up with evidence there's a god, could you please tell him I want a pony?
Amy Alkon at November 15, 2009 7:56 PM
If you find a god grantig wishes, I want a harem
lujlp at November 15, 2009 8:18 PM
It's funny. I have never understood why people would ask for a small specific item from god. I want something grand like ESP or the next start up company that will be Microsoft. With that I'll be able to eventually get my own private island with a whole stable of ponies, revolving harems (a shout out to the Sultan of Brunei!), a whole bunch of great stuff. People, you gotta think big when your gettin a wish granted from god. He's a busy guy (he's still spending a lot time trying to figure out what set them Muslims off) and can't be bothered with a mere pony or a few harem girls.
TW at November 15, 2009 11:50 PM
World peace.
(You guys are so selfish, thinking of yourselves all the time.)
Cure for AIDS in Africa.
Maybe this Mahogany Strat, too.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 16, 2009 12:41 AM
Those guys say he lost the debate, and I believe them. They were there. It makes sense, too: Craig is a debate rock star and Hitchens is a journalist.
Summaries are evidence. For video you'd have to buy the DVD, unless it's on a warez site or something. (That would be hilarious.)
I hope this doesn't offend you, but you and I have extreme difficulty communicating with each other, and it frustrates me, so I usually choose to ignore your posts. The information you seek is out there, so you need not depend on me to provide it.
Pseudonym at November 16, 2009 6:27 AM
Sood, here's a little help for ya'. You need it! http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Win_An_Internet_Flame_War
Rojak at November 16, 2009 6:51 AM
So now almost 18 hours and you still havent even posted half of the summary Pseud.
Lets recap shall we
You said there were 5 points
#1 which you dint give
#2 which I refuted
#3 which I refuted
#4.1 which you dint give
#4.2 which you dint give
#4.4 which you dint give
#5 which was not even on point
So in atuality there were 6 points
You later posted point number on which was a monumnet to the stupidity af assumption ad circular logic
Its been over 18 hours since we asked for the second half of this guys amazing insights, and while you've found the time to post nearly half a dozen times indeed once to tell us that sumarizes are evidence though I dont see any scientits taking the word of person A sumerizing the summary of person B for an event person A never witnessed.
I hope this doesn't offend you, but you and I have extreme difficulty communicating with each other, and it frustrates me, so I usually choose to ignore your posts. The information you seek is out there, so you need not depend on me to provide it
Why should I find it offenseive that you are to cowardly to defend your ideals? You are the one who made the claim, you are the one who needs to back it up. And I'd appologize for your frustration at your inability to keep up in these little debates of ours but your the one who started this one.
So tell you what, admit you are wrong either in writting or by your silence, or just post the information which backs up your claims.
It isnt my job to simply take your word as gospel, if you want to debate with or persuade others to your line of thinking the very least you could do is provide us with the material you alluded to in your argument.
Otherwise the only thing we have to go in is (1) your biased sumarizing (2) of the notes of some biased guy (3) who went to a debte you have never seen
You expect us to accept 2nd hand hersey filtered thru two biased lenses?
What if I found the notes of some athiest who said your guy got trounced? Would you take me at my word taking him at his word?
Somehow I doubt it.
So how about you put up, or shut up?
lujlp at November 16, 2009 6:58 AM
> Those guys say he lost the debate, and
> I believe them.
Cowardly demeanor and infantile credulity are important components of religious belief: You represent your faith perfectly.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 16, 2009 7:29 AM
Thanks, Rojak, but I'm not interested in flaming. I write mostly to convince myself and partly to convince lurkers. Insults are ideologically nonthreatening and able to be safely ignored. I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes get caught up in argument (it's fun), but the above is my goal.
I've posted 3 or 4 links to it. The most recent link even included quotations from the debate participants. I don't need to cut and paste from someone else's blog; the arguments are there, read them for yourself if you're interested.
I think you misunderstand what my claims are:
1) critical thought is not a death sentence for religion, as evidenced by the existence of very smart Christian philosophers
2) Christopher Hitchens got spanked in a debate last April by William Lane Craig.
Crid asked for details about the arguments in the debate, and I posted some, which you seem to have interpreted as something that I am trying to convince you is true. I believe them to be true, but I'm only claiming here that they exist and that Hitchens failed to refute them in that debate.
I'm not an expert in the Kalam Cosmological Argument; if I could prove or disprove it I'd write it down in order to receive a PhD in Philosophy. That you think you've torn it apart is ludicrous; I don't even completely understand it, and the atheist blogger I've been linking to has 10+ posts just describing it.
When it's written by people biased in your favor, yes. There are lots of accounts online. I haven't found any that claim Hitchens tied or won, but you don't have to take my word for it; you can search for them yourself.
Why do you cling to your religious belief in the infallibility of Hitchens despite the evidence? Is it because of something that you read in a book? Perhaps someone you trust told you that Hitchens is great? Do you see the similarities between your behavior and how you accuse religious people of behaving?
That says more about you than about me. :)
Pseudonym at November 16, 2009 7:55 AM
Why do you cling to your religious belief in the infallibility of Hitchens despite the evidence? Is it because of something that you read in a book? Perhaps someone you trust told you that Hitchens is great? Do you see the similarities between your behavior and how you accuse religious people of behaving?
I never said Hitchens was infallible, I only asked that you provide the reasons why you claimed ne lost, as opposed to what you originally posted which in summary was "he lost"
Religious peoples behavior - I'm right 'because'
My behavior - prove it
What if I found the notes of some athiest who said your guy got trounced? Would you take me at my word taking him at his word?
Somehow I doubt it.
That says more about you than about me. :)
Well in that case I found an athiest blogger who says your guy got trounced, I expect you to take me at my word and ask no questions or ask for any proof
lujlp at November 16, 2009 8:14 AM
Incedentaly in case you ignored that particular post of mine I did disprove the Kalam Cosmological Argument - feel free to use it as your own and get yourself that PhD
lujlp at November 16, 2009 8:22 AM
> I'm only claiming here
> that they exist and that
> Hitchens failed to refute
> them in that debate.
No, all you're claiming is that other guys say Hitchens failed. Your own beliefs and judgments are still shrouded in all the bloggy, teenage-dramatic mystery befitting a man who calls himself "Pseudonym".
If your guy is such a "rock star", how come I've never heard of him? Also, how come he so sullenly took a punch in that clip I linked?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 16, 2009 8:36 AM
Also isnt it a little fraudulent to use outdated cosmoligical science in a bid to defend an institution that regularly tortured people to death for saying that the earth wanst the center of all creation?
lujlp at November 16, 2009 9:10 AM
I have always believed that I am a Christian because I was raised in a Christian country, however I still believe in Jesus and God. It is human nature to believe that our parents beliefs are fact until we are old enough and curious enough to branch out on our own. Then, and only then do we begin to question. I myself am comfortable with the faith of my predecessors after going to church and learning on my own, however I am UNcomfortable with the idea that ANY God would deny the love of the faithful. So whatever religion or belief system one choses can lead them to the holy land. Maybe it makes me less of a "Christian," but I refuse to believe God would deny those who never had a chance to know "the true version."
MizB at November 16, 2009 10:37 AM
If you do manage to come up with evidence there's a god, could you please tell him I want a pony?
You don't really want a pony. Trust me. My fiance called my bluff on this, and then I had to spend five minutes convincing him that I really DIDN'T want a pony. Embarrassing.
MonicaP at November 16, 2009 10:38 AM
No, I added the clarification that I believe those guys when they say that Hitchens failed. Were you able to find any evidence challenging that claim from the blog that contained direct quotes?
Indeed. :) It reminds me of the (mis)quote: "I don't know how Nixon won. Nobody I know voted for him!"
Pseudonym at November 16, 2009 11:26 AM
> I believe those guys when
> they say that Hitchens failed.
Distinction of no difference: You're trusting third parties to do your thankin' for you, and we need not be impressed.
From multiple layers of anonymity and irresponsible depths of isolation, you're doing everything in your power to come off as an annoying brat. Little Baby Jesus isn't impressed with you, either.
Google says you've been commenting for a year, but this is your first appearance in our consciousness. Why are you here?
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 16, 2009 1:47 PM
Pure nonsense. What have you done with the real Crid? Normally you're such a critical thinker.
Has it been that long? Time flies when you're having fun.
Pseudonym at November 16, 2009 2:58 PM
"Pure nonsense. What have you done with the real Crid? Normally you're such a critical thinker."
Whenever I see a fucking troll like you, I pray to the God there is a hell.
And I will see you in the hell from the heaven.
Chang at November 16, 2009 3:10 PM
Pseudonym - Not bashing, just some quick workday semi-critical thinking:
"1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
SOunds logical, but who kknows?
"2. The universe began to exist."
A bald assumption. You're already building a shaky foundation here ... Maybe it always existed? If it could work for your deity, why not for a universe we do not fully understand? I wasn't there at the beginning, and I ain't Carl Sagan or Steven Hawking; I dunno.
"3. Therefore, the universe has a cause."
See above responses. But even if it's true, we're leaping to some mad conclusions below ...
"4. If the universe has a cause [unproven assertion], then an uncaused [where's the proof / theory/ underlying assertion of this new factoid?], personal [how'd THAT sneak in?]Creator of the universe exists [wow - what an unsupported conclusion THAT is! see prior critiques herein - a simple 'some Cause logically must exist" may have flown under the radar here], who [why not "which?"] sans the universe is beginningless, changeless [assumption], immaterial [coulda been a gas ball? - OK, if you mean that no material existed BEFORE it...], timeless [how do you know that?], spaceless [assuming it created space, maybe...], and enormously powerful {I'll give you this last one].
"5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful."
Wow. Sounds a lot like, "I have no clue how this whole game show started, but it must have started, and therefore something must have started it (I could buy the argument so far); and since I cannot explain that, the only answer is the Big Guy - and I'll throw in all the standard attributes."
I'm just sayin', is all ...
Mr. Teflon at November 17, 2009 1:15 PM
look at that psuedonym, two people who came up with the exact same flaws in your argument
I'm assuming Mr Teflon missed my post ofcourse
lujlp at November 17, 2009 2:40 PM
Props, Teffy.
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at November 18, 2009 12:13 AM
Lujlp - you are correct. Apologies; busy day yesterday, skimmed through more quickly than I would have liked. Crid - you just made my day. Thx!
Mr. Teflon at November 18, 2009 10:53 AM
Leave a comment