I especially liked that classic you linked this morning, about how religious believers would respond if they were pestered in their last days.

It targets that really nauseating presumption religious people have, even American ones, about their own righteousness. AND WE HAVE SEEN IT AT WORK IN THESE COMMENTS. Believers, like lefties, often seem never to have done any heavy lifting in their lives, cosmologically or otherwise... But they expect to be indulged when they say condescending things, as if we shared unspoken agreement that they were pretty special & decent people.

There's no such agreement.

Wanna drop your faith, gennilmen?

That's you in the corner, that's you in the spot-light....

(Amy's right, but none are immune)

Hitchens was a sublime blend of scholar and performer.

What crid & Andrew said.

Regarding the theists' insistence upon a supernatural imprimatur for morality, Stephen Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, materially proves what Hitch has polemically asserted.

That's you in the corner, that's you in the spot-light....

Were there words in that clip?

One thing I have always enjoyed about Hitch was his frequent use of "Fuck" and "Shit" within an almost unrivaled vocabulary. There simply is no substitute in the language for "Fuck off", or I am sure he would have found it.

PS- Crid- I really tried, but I just can't understand a word that buxom redhead Rene was saying. I swear I watched it several times, in total concentration, I even tried her video on astrology several times, but it's like listening to Charlie Brown's teacher.

I just read that Hitch made it into heaven, and was taken to see God immediately. After 30 minutes of discussion, God is now convinced He doesn't exist.

"Wanna drop your faith, gennilmen?"

Thanks for the link.

It is so nice to see sexy atheist although I
did not hear a word what she said.

I hope she will end up in hell right beside me.

> Were there words in that clip?

> I just can't understand a word that buxom
> redhead Rene was saying

One problem with human physiology is that the auditory cortex can be overwhelmed by intense stimulation from other regions.

That's you in the corner, that's you in the spot-light....

That's part of the lyrics to "Losing My Religion" by R.E.M. (paraphrased, of course), Jeff. Too bad they've broken up!

Cridmeister! Simulpost!! How's things, sweetie?

If I was going to attempt simultaneous post with anyone here, it would be you

Backatcha, darlin'! I am once again gainfully employed, and so haven't been posting as often as I would like, but it's always a pleasure (in many ways) to read your posts!

I don't find the idea of "God", or some higher power, to be troubling. I just dislike people in any religion claiming that they are somehow "favored" by this higher power.

The title of Hitchens' 2007 book is God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

If there is a "God", religion poisoning everything (or a lot of things), doesn't mean that this higher power isn't great.

That's part of the lyrics to "Losing My Religion" by R.E.M.

From, in my opinion, their finest album....with the follow-on, Automatic For The People, second best. I love Peter Buck's mandolin on that song. They did a superb performance of it on Saturday Night Live back in 1991.

Great band.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I heard in the realm of rock-n-roll trivia that "losing my religion" was a southern phrase for losing one's temper. I was never a big REM fan.

Is "The Burner" Rita Turner still on the radio down there in Hollywoodland? I used to talk to her as a teenager on the phone when she had her midnight show, right after Mark Dennis on KMET... (little bit o' heavan, 94.7, KMET, tweedle dee.) Remember those cool rainbow stickers they handed out at concerts?

> I was never a big REM fan.

Me neither. But your head is there to move you around, so...

> 94.7

For the last 22 years, they've been playing sunday-morning-omelet music, Spiro Gyra, George Benson vocal tunes, etc.

Morbid truth: A friend who was dying of cancer in the hospital a few years ago listened to that station all the way down. And honestly, it wasn't that bad... When you have something better to complain about. The meds probably helped.

A.) I'm now going to be singing that R.E.M song now.

B.) I have said time, and time again, that the God in the Old Testament is not the same God of the New Testament.

C.) I do not worship the God of the Old Testament. He is in the damn first commandment, a jealous God, a term in which I find unholy. Despite the ability for the Catholic church to deny the reality of the Old Testament God, how much the Catholic faith wants to translate the New Testament as a "suffix" to the rest of the Bible.

D.) Is the Jesus and the subsequent God that he describes as the moral affiliate? Are they the same God?
1.) If they change fundamentalism, Why?
2.) If they are the same God, why the sudden change of heart?

Beyond that, I have little support for Christianity.

E.) Unfortunately, those on the side of atheism are more informed.

> do you really get to pick and choose?

People do, whether or not they should. See June 7.

Apropos of nothing, consider this visage of overstimulation

Andrew is right, by the way. Hitchens was a gifted speaker and writer who changed my mind about important things, or who at least nourished better parts of earlier understanding. But a lot of the speeches were roadshow performance.

"Can anyone dispute even one of his points in any substantial way?"

Mr. Hitchens was a fine man. However, you have too much faith in his arguments, and too little understanding of Christian scholarship. The following link is to an entertaining 90 minute-ish documentary about a book tour which Mr. Hitchens conducted with Douglas Wilson. The two had co-authored a book about whether or not Christianity is good for the world. The book tour amounted to an ongoing series of debates, between the two men, about Christianity. All of Mr. Hitchens' points were disputed in a substantial way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU0Ue-Ki-mU&feature=player_embedded

The very end of the documentary contains, for me, a fascinating moment which will stick with me. I do not quite know what I think about it, but I shall wonder at it for a while. Mr. Hitchens says ... if he somehow dissuaded Christian after Christian to abandon our religion, and thence there remained only one Christian in the world, i.e. only one Christian standing in the way of a world which would be free of Christianity ... Mr. Hitchens would not convince that last Christian to give up his Christianity. Mr. Hitchens, speaking from the back of a limo, relates his thoughts about this at 1:24:15 of the documentary.

piddling around on YouTube, I find that someone has uploaded that specific section of Hitchens' commentary about declining to eliminate all religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9TMwfkDwIY&feature=related

Hey gcotharn,

Thanks so much for the link. That was a really interesting documentary. I think I know the answer about why he might opt to not snuff it out. It may be because religion is such an odd and interesting part of our common humanity. It's not the humanity of it that is troublesome. The danger is in the numbers.

I'm very disappointed to learn that Christopher Hitchens has passed. I think, at least hope, that his life made a very big impact. The more that people can be disabused of the nonsense of religion, the better. I think he may have made great strides in bringing people to the side of reason.

@whistleDick

"It's not the humanity of it that is troublesome. The danger is in the numbers."

Well stated.

Brilliant commentary; although where I disagree with Hitchens is I don't rule out the possibility that there's a God.

> All of Mr. Hitchens' points were disputed
> in a substantial way.

Foaming, lathery frogwash.

A substantial way!

> where I disagree with Hitchens is I don't rule
> out the possibility that there's a God.

He never said that. He explicitly said he couldn't 'rule out' a god.

All he wanted was evidence.

Ever notice how people sometimes hesr the things they want to argue with rather than the things that actually get said? I admire public rhetors (Hitch, Paglia, Lomborg, others) for being cool about that instead of enraged.

Pisses me off. I mean, if you're THAT lonely, turn on a sitcom and pretend you retrocopulating with Jennifer Anniston, and leave the rest of us out of it.

>> retrocopulating

I don't know if that's actually a word, but it is a great word. Wouldn't it be great if words were actually attributed to the first person who said them

"I think he may have made great strides in bringing people to the side of reason. "

Maybe. Be interesting to ask him now, wouldn't it?

Religion and God are 2 independent things. The first is manmade and therefor prone to massive error and subversion. The second-well, maybe I believe because I was taught it young. Maybe it's because of the massive feeling of peace I get at the most random and irrational times that everything is in fact going to be okay in the end. Maybe it's what I feel holding my kids-these miracles of gajillions of little processes that all happened in order to exist. But I believe. I won't argue my belief is rational. It doesn't need to be.

@Crid

Maybe it is fair for me to give one example, amongst of a plethora of examples in the documentary, of one of Mr. Hitchens' points being disputed in a substantial way.

A point: "disputed in a substantial way" is Amy's language. You can disagree with Mr. Wilson's opinions, yet still grant that Mr. Wilson was disputing in a substantial way.

I choose the following example b/c the issue was raised in this comment section during Dec 2010. The example occurs at the 54:10 mark of the video.

Hitchens: "[Jesus said] he would reappear in the lifetimes of his disciples".

Mr. Wilson explains that Jesus was not referring to the end of the space/time universe. Rather, Jesus was quoting Isaiah, and was prophesying that he would come back and destroy Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem did occur, in 70 AD, exactly as Jesus prophesied - exactly on time.

You can agree with Mr. Wilson, or disagree, yet it is fair to say he disputed Mr. Hitchens in a substantial way.

point of information: Mr. Hitchens and Mr. Wilson were discussing Jesus' words in Matthew 24 (especially Matthew 24:29).

the pertinent Isaiah references: Isaiah 13:10; 34:4

Eric: Earliest known cite.


> I won't argue my belief is rational. It doesn't
> need to be.

Certainly not... If you never bother the grownups with it again. In preschool days I had an imaginary friend named Mr. Ned... Ya don't see me smirking at people about the warmth of his company.

Many of us, while mistaken about many things, squander no calculation on supernatural forces. We don't flirt with women in bars over astrology chatter. We don't amuse ourselves at roulette wheels feigning hot and cold streaks. And we don't pretend that an omnipotent, omniscient Creator can be excused for a planet of torturous sorrows (both natural and synthetic) because he happens to adore us on an individual level.

> is fair to say he disputed Mr. Hitchens in a
> substantial way.

Fairer to say he's evasive, quibbling, desperately cleaving from the vast body of Christian thought and practice... And wrong.

Fairer to say he's evasive, quibbling, desperately cleaving from the vast body of Christian thought and practice... And wrong.

Worse, he is completely ignorant of the fundamental basis of Hitchens' argument.

Which runs something like this: Every God has existence only through a religion. Without any evidence supporting a religion's claims about its God, and much contradicting them, then there is no reason to conclude that God exists: every religion is founded upon error. It is odd that theologians find this so hard to take on board, as it is precisely the same line of reasoning they use upon all other religions' Gods, save their own.

The second part of his argument is that the nature of religious belief (i.e., any set of universalist utopian truth claims independent of material evidence) is such that the consequences are invariably bad, and that we are far better off being shot of baseless superstition.

Mr. Wilson's counterarguments are simply silly, and historically disproved. There is scarcely a Christian today that wouldn't have qualified as an atheist a hundred years ago.

By Wilson's reasoning, that inescapable fact requires that our societies should have long since become amoral Nietschian hellholes.

But they didn't; quite the opposite, in fact.

You'd think he'd notice.

Shoulda linktit... As inane pop tunes go, that was one the better ones from the 80's. If you weren't ashamed of doing the Wayne's World headbob during Reagan's second term, you won't be ashamed of it now.

although where I disagree with Hitchens is I don't rule out the possibility that there's a God.

Posted by: Iconoclast

Have you ruled out the possibility thatt an invisible, immaterial, interdimentional, perverted, sex obbsessed purple dinosaur is fucking the back of your skull at this very moment?

Cause you have no proof that there isnt one, now do you?

The destruction of Jerusalem did occur, in 70 AD, exactly as Jesus prophesied - exactly on time.

Wait a moment you mean to tell me that a prophecy written down 50yrs after the event prophicied turned out to be true?

Wait a moment - I am seeing something, in the fall of the year on 1963 a great leader will be murdered in place that will be known as Texas.

You know gcotharn, prophecies arent that prophetic when written down after the fact. Either that or I am a prophet as well

Gentlemen,

Fellate each other all you want. My point stands:

Amy said: "Can anyone dispute even one of [Hitchens'] points in any substantial way?" According to a fair understanding of the English language: Mr. Wilson disputed Mr. Hitchens' points in a substantial way.

I gave a specific example - which example happened to have been previously referenced in this blog comment section. In the film, Mr. Hitchens does not dispute Mr. Wilson's point, but rather changes the subject. Thus, Mr. Hitchens effectively concedes Mr. Wilson's point. Mr. Hitchens displayed more wisdom than of which you gentlemen appear capable.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you gentlemen believe that Christian scholars have never substantially grappled with the implications of Mr. Hitchens' various questions, then you gentlemen are ignorant of Christian scholarship. Mr. Hitchens' are exactly the types of questions with which Christian scholars love to grapple. This is true of professional scholars in schools of theology, and it is true of amateur scholars in Bible studies all over the U.S., and in Sunday schools all over the U.S. You can disagree with Christian reasoning and faith, yet you display ignorance if you believe philosophical and historical questions are not widely addressed; are not seriously and substantially addressed - both by professional scholars and amateur scholars - just as Mr. Wilson, i.e. a preacher from Idaho, addressed them in the series of debates with Mr. Hitchens.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tiny final note, to lujlp:

the point is that Jesus was not predicting the end of time/space continuum.

The rest, i.e. the debates about what scripture was recorded, and when, are big nerdy debates. Exists too much information to cover here. I recommend that you tread carefully, there. The people who are interested in that are VERY interested, and are often VERY knowledgeable. Scholarship is ongoing. New discoveries are occurring. The "mark of the beast" is 616. I repeat: 616. Here is Part I of a lecture by one of the top half dozen (if not one of the top 2 or 3) Scripture scholars in the world, Dr. Daniel Wallace. I recommend it. History of scripture is not my thing, but sometimes I do enjoy delving into it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFZDKyvlJLs&feature=BFa&list=FLG5kErvQ9_QbVelhUrEx3JA&lf=plcp

> Mr. Wilson disputed Mr. Hitchens' points in
> a substantial way.

Nope... A fulfilling way for the flock of clouded minds, perhaps, but convincing to no one.

> Mr. Hitchens does not dispute Mr. Wilson's
> point, but rather changes the subject. Thus,
> Mr. Hitchens effectively concedes Mr. Wilson's
> point.

You might wanna easy on the "thus" stuff, unless you have a minor in rhetoric or something... And if you think that's how logical argument works, I'd wager you don't.

> you display ignorance if you believe
> philosophical and historical questions are
> not widely addressed

And you display deceit if you pretend that was the point: These questions aren't satisfactorily answered. We're glad, for your sake, that you have boys in the lab working to refine your product. (Well, we would be glad, if we didn't have to suspend taxation to make their efforts possible.) But let's not pretend they've delivered the goods.


Besides... What could I want from Jeff and company when your own toothless chat-hole is so moist and receptive?

As you used it, the plain meaning of "substantial arguments" = intellectually hefty and respectable arguments. The meaning does not equal: arguments I agree with.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

re evidence of God

A great number of highly accomplished Christians ... profess to believe in accessible spirituality which cannot be defined by or contained by scientific evidence, which cannot be fully described by human language, which cannot be fully conceived by human understanding.

You admit the possibility of the existence of this spirituality.

Is it not intellectually hefty and credible for us to say, based upon our experiences of what it is to be human (including our spiritual instincts and experiences): we judge the teachings of Jesus to be legitimate?

Your experience, of what it is to be human, has been different from ours. Is your sense, of what it is to be human(i.e. to be human is to be strictly bound by what can be proven), so superior as to render our opinions intellectually unrespectable? Is it possible for you to disagree with our assertion that accessible spirituality is part of human existence ... while still granting intellectual respectability to our assertion?

Because,
your argument,
in favor of the stupidity of Christians,
is premised upon our Christian assertion of an accessible spiritual aspect to the human experience ... being so intellectually unrespectable ... as to render all consequent Christian philosophical and theological reasoning invalid.

As to Zeus: if the totality of my experience of being human ever powerfully and overwhelmingly indicates that I ought worship him, then I will.

the above was in response to Amy. However, it works for Crid, also.

I must admit, Crid, I am flummoxed by your objection to my use of "thus". I do not see how "thus" was grammatically or logically incorrect.

A mind righteously enchanted with prissy detail wouldn't be confused by these arguments.

IOW: I've known a few actual grad student philosophy types. They don't do much thus'n or flummox'n, and they do not avoid contractions (such as "don't").

They would just go through their days philosophizin', all quiet-like. Some of them drank.

A few thngs gcotharn

1. I demand you acknowlegde my prophecy of the death of Kennedy

2. If you want people to watch the video of your supposed point please kindly provide a time stamp as we are unwilling to watch an hour and a half 'CLIP'

3. "A great number of highly accomplished Christians ... profess to believe in accessible spirituality which cannot be defined by or contained by scientific evidence, which cannot be fully described by human language, which cannot be fully conceived by human understanding."

At one point a great mumber of neolithinc and bronze age shamans proffesed belief in the sprituality of the wind, lightning, volcanoes, and the ocean which at the time " cannot be defined by or contained by scientific evidence, which cannot be fully described by human language, which cannot be fully conceived by human understanding."

@lujlp

My point has to do with this simple thing:
Amy said:
"Can anyone dispute even one of [Hitchens'] points in any substantial way?"

Amy's is a ludicrous statement, yet can be forgiven by any number of circumstances, i.e. we write quickly, and sometimes go a bit too far; Amy is a great admirer of Hitchens, as am I btw, and Hitchens just died, and he was a fine man and there is emotion involved, and natural desire to extend praise in his direction.

But, my point is: all of Hitchens' points were disputed, in intellectually hefty and respectable fashion, by Mr. Wilson. The documentary shows example after example of this. Out of sense of fairness, I specified the example of Mr. Wilson disputing Mr. Hitchens' point that Jesus predicted the end of the time/space continuum during the lifetimes of his listeners. I pointed out that Mr. Hitchens effectively conceded Mr. Wilson's point. So, we see, across the documentary, and in my specified example, that Mr. Hitchens' points can be and have been disputed in substantial fashion.

It baffles me that everyone in this comment section is not willing to concede this simple point. Just as you all believe Christians have idiotic beliefs, so I think you all have idiotic beliefs. To bind the experience of humanity - to what can be proven according to natural law - is ludicrous. The experience of humanity is so much more than that. You all, in this area, are idiots, and tragically so, and to your own detriment: you are missing out on exquisite parts of the experience of being human. Your views are beyond blind and foolish; your view and my view cannot be reconciled: one of us is absolutely absolutely wrong. Yet, it is still fair to say that your arguments are intellectually hefty and intellectually respectable. The main reason your arguments are wrong is b/c your premises are wrong.

That is all I am saying. Except, also, I still do not see how I used "thus" either ungrammatically or illogically. If anyone is willing to explain, I would appreciate.

Also, I retract "great number of ... accomplished Christians". Appeal to authority. I ought have merely said "Christians..."

One more: somewhere up there is a suggestion that I give off the affected pretension of a graduate student in philosophy. If so: my bad. I am a Homer Simpson who is studying the Bible for the first time; who is going to church, seriously, for the first time; and who is being drawn in to all the community service stuff which churchy people do - fixing up womens shelters and stuff. The peer pressure is unimaginable!

"Ya don't see me smirking at people about the warmth of his company"

But if Amy posted something about imaginary friends and you had one, you might smirk away on here about the warmth of his compnay. It's not as if we're ringing your doorbell to share this with you. You are reading a blog post that asks our thoughts. I gave mine with no more smirking than you. If thoughts on this irk you, don't read it.

@Amy

I gave the specific example of Hitchens effectively conceding the point that Jesus did not predict the end of the space/time continuum.

You are twisting your own phrase: "dispute ... in any substantial way", into something unrecognizable to readers of the English language. I would think you would merely concede and move on. Your mistake is not a big deal. Yet, you have dug in, apparently to the death, and you and your cohorts appear willing to launch as many straw man arguments as are necessary to reassure yourselves of your own righteousness.

No gcotharn, you didnt show Hitchen being refuted, you said you had an example and gave a link to an 87 minute long clip,

Now, as soon as you tell us at what time in that clip you are refering to so we can watch it without having to waste upwards of three hours depending on connection speeds the rest of us can look at this supposed refutation and then comment upon it.

Until then its like saying "This one statment just makes so much sense" and then handing us an entire book and failing to mention which sentance you are referencing

Started a long comment, lost wind. Erased it. Starting over.

> all of Hitchens' points were disputed

Are you a bright guy? Courageous? Decent? Well then Flummox onward, Thusly! And DISPUTATIOUSLY, YOU HOWLING CHRISTIAN SAVAGE, YOU!!! You're a THINKER!!!!!... WITH RIPPLING TITTY MUSCLES THROUGH YOUR DISTRESSED COTTON MAN-BLOUSE!!!

Witless commenters show up now and then on this blog, their meager genitals moistened by some idiot champion who no one's ever heard of, and pretend there was some minor point of rhetoric that Hitch (Dawkins/Harris/Shermer/etc.) missed, and which resets the clock on the entire discussion. Anybody remember the guy whose hero was William Lane Craig? Been looking for that name ever since. Ain't found it, not even in the Ted Haggard/Jimmy Swaggart/Jim Bakker continuum.

Here's how Hitch got famous, even with people like me, who don't like to read much: He frequently demonstrated how words and thinking improve each other. And how, in so very much religious twaddle, they do not.


> if Amy posted something about imaginary friends
> and you had one

What possible, possible point could you be making? The Nedster (famous for breaking neighborhood birdbaths, burying toys in sand dunes, playing with matches and staring at cripples) left my side at approximately the hour of the Kennedy assassination. This was some time ago. Amy had not yet been born.

Yeah, sure: If this blogger and I had childish, inane, or delusional beliefs in 2011, we might agree about them. Therefore... What? If we were Scientologists, we might each be making plans to spend Christmas at the new Tom Cruise movie. And if we were model train enthusiasts, we might each be green-painting little paper leaves on the trees of our HO scale railroad sets.

But we grew up, shedding imaginary friends and childish habits. We want you to do so as well. Your question suggests that everyone has a huge region of intentionally fantastic thinking in their adult soul, and this is not true.

> You are reading a blog post that asks our
> thoughts. I gave mine

No no no. That's a tremendous understatement. You went to a lot of trouble to be condescending, to be as poignant about it as you possibly could. I'll Google the link if you want. You made a large effort to deploy your religious belief, your belief in a supernatural being with a personal interest in your life, to make social distance from others.

And that's really, really not necessary. I promise. No one was going to be intruding on your heart without your permission. (Unless, you know, you had doubts or something...)

We don't like you enough.

But I was raised in a Christian home, and named for a Methodist minister... My grandfather. I know this stuff. I know that the son of God would not be charmed by your use of condescension in selling your faith in Him to others. He'd think you need to reread the passages on humility.

@luljp

You did not believe me when I gave Hitchens/Wilson quotes + scriptural citations from Matthew and from Isaiah? It is easy for me to find the spot in the film: it occurs at the 54:00 mark.

@amy

Are you equating your "give evidence of God" challenge to your "Can anyone dispute even one of [Hitchens'] points in any substantial way?" The statements do not equate.

What do you intend "dispute ... in a substantial way" to mean? To you, does it mean "agrees with Amy"? If you will define "in a substantial way", then I will consider giving evidence of God in a way which meets your definition of "a substantial way". I will not get into a back and forth contest over whether or not God exists. What would be the point? Is there ANY chance either of us would convince the other of ANYTHING? I think not. Waste of time. Both of us already consider the other of us to be an idiot re this issue.

However, if I am asked to make a substantial case for God, i.e. to make an intellectually hefty and respectable case for God, i.e. to make a case with which you could disagree (due to your premise that humans cannot sense spiritual happenings) yet still grant that it was an intellectually respectable argument, then, of course, I could do that. In fact, I already did make such case, at 8:45 AM in this comment section.

@lujlp

It just occurred to me, in my own defense: in addition to giving quotes and scriptural references, I had also previously given the time spot (54:10) in the film in which anyone could watch the particular exchange between Hitchens and Wilson. I gave this info in a comment at 8:09 PM on Dec 18.

re evidence of God

A great number of highly accomplished Christians ... profess to believe in accessible spirituality which cannot be defined by or contained by scientific evidence, which cannot be fully described by human language, which cannot be fully conceived by human understanding.
You admit the possibility of the existence of this spirituality.

Here you demonstrate the shapeshifting conceptual confusion, always in play but never ackowledged, that so permeates theist arguments.

Okay, let's take as stipulated that many people seem have some sense of the transcendent that is irrevocably beyond the bounds of rational inquiry. Indeed, let's go one step further and agree that spiritual feelings are prima facie evidence of some form of existence outside our material realm.

Glibly equating that stipulation with a religious belief — which you do by putting Christians and spirituality in the same sentence — is either intentional deception or intellectual sloppiness, and theists do it all the time.

In so doing, they leave out a giant step in the middle: that [Christianity | Islam | Judaism | Mormonism | Hinduism …] is the correct translation of that transcendence. As I noted above, the mutually exclusive nature of each of these theological claims to correct translation demonstrates that at least all but one of them are objectively wrong, which is to say their claims to correctly instantiate the divine are in error.

I don't think it is possible to overemphasize what this means: all theists are atheists with respect to all religious claims except their own.

Of course, since the source of each of these sets of transcendence instantiating statements (a long way of saying "religion") is the same — revelation — then there is absolutely no way to discern among all the competing religions which one is true, among all those that are merely instances of mass delusion.

So, while there is absolutely no defensible reason to choose which among an endless list of religions is not merely the sadly mistaken following of charlatans, or lunatics confusing intra-cranial echoes for the call of the divine, merely indulging in some un-blinkered thinking will rapidly lead to the conclusion that all religions are founded upon error, containing statements, directives, ablutions, demands, penalties and obeisances that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual state of existence outside our material realm.

That is sufficient to make one an atheist: all religions are myth sanctioned by numbers. Hitchens takes this conclusion one step further: anti-theism. Religions are not only objectively wrong, but subjectively as well. While it is possible for incorrect beliefs to have beneficial, or at least benign, consequences, for an anti-theist, the consequences of all religious beliefs are, on balance, bad. While this seems over the top at first glance, think about it. True religious belief always requires creating morally exclusionary communities — that is very bad. But to seemingly balance the scale, religious belief also encourages charity.

But surely you must see that this doesn't balance at all, because religiously inspired charity is cheapened by a quisling taint: the charity is motivated not by any willingness to make a personal sacrifice, but rather to do what it takes to propitiate the celestial dictator.

IMHO, practically no one any more actually believes (or knows particularly well) the claims of Christianity in its various guises. Its fangs have been drawn. For that matter, a majority of Muslims don't really believe or know Islam.

But a minority do, and they suffice to substantiate the claim that religion poisons everything.

Apologies for the long-winded post, but I'm stuck in a Delhi hotel room today. Surrounded by the consequences of Hinduism: the caste system. Speaking of religion poisoning everything ...

Aha!, you say! Intellectual heft is thusly flummoxed!

Atheists think your system of belief is pathetic, and you wanna defend it with few rounds of gotcha.

One more thing ...

You did not believe me when I gave Hitchens/Wilson quotes + scriptural citations from Matthew and from Isaiah? It is easy for me to find the spot in the film: it occurs at the 54:00 mark.

I haven't actually watched that segment yet, but the gist I get is that Hitchens conceded that the Bible did not say what he asserted it did. Fine. It is worth noting that this concession does not mean that the Bible said something definitive in opposition to Hitchens. It is worth noting the conclusion is not that since it didn't say something, it said the opposite; rather, the conclusion is that, in this case the Bible used up some words without saying anything at all.

Several years ago, perhaps evidencing an irretrievably boring personality, I read several academic books that focused on Holy Land archeology.

Now, it is true that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

But at some point, the gaping absence of any evidence for virtually every bit of the Old Testament, the void of nullity underlying it all, starts looking like evidence of absence.

> (due to your premise that humans cannot sense
> spiritual happenings)

Amy's premise: "That humans cannot sense spiritual happenings".

Good to know!

(Sumbuddy tell the cook it needs more "flummox")

@Jeff Guinn

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. All the way from Delhi!

I must back up, just a bit, then go forward in a second comment.

my comments (8:45 AM Dec 19, in response to a demand for evidence of God) were intended to assert this simple point: an anti-theist ought be able to disagree with an assertion that accessible spirituality is part of human existence ... while still granting intellectual respectability to the assertion.

If an anti-theist is willing to do that, then the anti-theist can grant that substantial arguments (i.e. intellectually respectable arguments) can be and have been made in opposition to Mr. Hitchens' points.

All theist reasoning flows from the premise (the faith based truth) that accessible spirituality is part of the human experience. Amy attempts to cut off all theist reasoning at the knees: attempts to invalidate all theist reasoning via always going back and slashing at the faith based truth that accessible spirituality is part of the human experience. Amy's argument: Nyah nyah nyah, you can't prove that humans can access spirituality, therefore you can't prove anything! Nyah nyah nyah! If Amy ever comprehends that her argument is grounded in her own faith based truth, then she will grant that theist arguments are intellectually respectable.

@Jeff Guinn

With kudos to you for the enlightening (to me) overview of Hitchens reasoning, on to your (and Hitchens') points:

~I glibly equated belief in God with Christianity~

I did not intend to do so. However, I will mull your point over time. Thank you for sharing it.

~all theists are atheists with respect to all religious claims except their own.~

Agreed.

~there is absolutely no way to discern among all the competing religions which one is true~

A clever, intellectually respectable argument. Also, an inelegant argument. It envisions accessible spirituality from a macro vantage point: as if looking upon an indistinct, hazy blunt force. Accessible spirituality is an elegant scalpel; accessed only from a personal and micro vantage point.

Also: exegesis. The intellectual and spiritual totality of my human experience shouts out to me that the exegetics surrounding the story of Jesus hold together. Not so for the exegetics surrounding the beliefs of other religions.

"True religious belief always requires creating morally exclusionary communities — that is very bad."

I cannot let this go by w/o noting my disagreement with "that is very bad".

Second, I do not perceive charity as being intended to "balance any scale". Any time we humans believe that, we are mistaken.

Third, you are a bit harsh on theists who do charity. Is charity really motivated by desire to make personal sacrifice, or by desire to love one's neighbor? Is one's motivation strictly about building up brownie points with "a celestial dictator"? Are there not a bunch of simultaneous payoffs? Self actualization for the giver? Love for the receiver? Collateral benefits? You are disassembling a poem into a dry and lifeless lining up, along the barren ground, of its parts.

I agree that, among Christians, there is much ignorance of Christianity. However [wink], in specifying Christianity and Islam, are you "Glibly equating" Christianity and Islam "with a religious belief"? Is this intellectual sloppiness? Do anti-theists do this all the time? :)

Lastly, re Hitchens effectively conceding the Bible does not say what Hitchens had believed it said..

I only highlighted that exchange b/c Amy's bar was so low. There was no reason for me to get into a fistfight, about the existence of God, with a bar full of atheists, and I had no intention of doing that. Rather, I objected to what I consider Amy's sloppy statement: "Can anyone dispute even one of [Hitchens'] points in any substantial way?" The Hitchens concession, re Matthew 24, clears Amy's very low bar; in fact, highlights just how low her bar is set.

I honestly expected that Amy, and other commenters, would recognize that Amy's statement was possibly formulated quickly, and therefore accidentally sloppily, and therefore was misleading re those of us who believe in God. I honestly expected the statement would be amended by Amy, or by other commenters. It seems, to me, a small thing. I did not expect almost everyone to dig in and to hang on for dear life. I am disappointed that they dug in, to the death. And I sneer at the straw men which have flown by. Or, should I say, the flying straw cars?

Best wishes for you, in Delhi.

Actually, 'tharn, your own "bar" is non-existent.

You keep using the word, "spirituality". I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's not your property, nor is it the property of anyone thumping the religious icon of their choice.

Rather than endure yet more nonsense you have mistaken for reason on your part, I invite you to read your own book and refute IT.

Lest anyone be confused by the assertions of someone less than rational, keep this in mind:

The entire reason we talk about "faith" and other meaningless words which sound good and can make some of us feel better is that there is nothing - zero, zip, nada, nothing - that actually shows the thing they're claiming.

If there was, we would be talking about the science behind all of the ridiculous, non-sensical claims out there. The zealot, who has clearly spent too much time standing directly in the sun, has exactly zero chance of understanding, much less using the kind of investigative rigor industry uses on a daily basis.

Hey, religious dude, it's not the Dark Ages. The processor on your desk has switches five atoms thick. The Cassini project landed a probe on Titan, and they could do that because they knew where Titan would be six years in advance. In fact, the whole "flat Earth" thing got INVENTED by your people MILLENNIA after other, supposedly less advanced people were already using celestial navigation - which isn't POSSIBLE unless you know more about the real world than to claim a farmer rode an Ark around.

Hey. Saint Augustine had something to say about this. Try to act like he's not talking about you.

…in response to a demand for evidence of God) were intended to assert this simple point: an anti-theist ought be able to disagree with an assertion that accessible spirituality is part of human existence ... while still granting intellectual respectability to the assertion.

I think you are still stuck in a fundamental error of reasoning.

Let's agree that there is some entity outside the material realm that can interact with that material realm in god-like ways, with one consequence being that some intuitively gifted people are able to perceive a spiritual presence. Let's further agree that presence is bona fide evidence that entity objectively exists.

Let's call that entity "god", with a small "g".

The existence of god is a necessary precondition for any religion to be objectively true. But, and this is a but so big it dwarfs J-Lo's, it is not sufficient. All spiritual religions (as opposed to a materialist religion like Communism), translate god into a specific God. Therefore, every God has comprehensible only through material manifestations, (Bible, Q'uran, Book of Mormon) of revelation.

Theists universally take the position, with respect to their own religion but no other, that the existence of god is both necessary AND sufficient for their material manifestation — God — to objectively exist. Mr. Wilson's entire argument, as does yours, rests upon this fundamental mistake.

What Hitchens, or Amy, or Radwaste, or Crid are saying, if I may be so bold as to speak for them, is that every material manifestation of god is wrong. So even conceding that some thing to which "god" could be applied actually exists does not for a moment grant "God".

I wish I would have used a different word than "glibly" in the equating of god with God; a far better word would have been "reflexively".

The intellectual and spiritual totality of my human experience shouts out to me that the exegetics surrounding the story of Jesus hold together. Not so for the exegetics surrounding the beliefs of other religions.

Well that is the problem right there. The basis for every religion is the material interpretation of god as some specific God, what you call exegisis. That irrevocably means that, there is no way to assess the truth value of competing claims between, or even within, religions.

Knowledge exists only to the extent one can discriminate between mutually exclusive claims.

We know that a given amount of water will change start to change state after the addition of a certain amount of energy, because we can distinguish that claim from its negative.

Therefore, despite claims to the contrary, there is no such thing as religious knowledge, which is to say, there is no knowledge about anything anywhere ever that is religiously derived.

Unfortunately, theists insist upon exactly the opposite. Islam claims to encompass complete knowledge. Christianity used to do the same, but still professes to have a special, specific insight into the nature of god. Unfortunately for every theism, the more we actually come to know, the more we know we don't know. That alone holes all religions below the waterline.

"True religious belief always requires creating morally exclusionary communities — that is very bad."

I cannot let this go by w/o noting my disagreement with "that is very bad".

History says otherwise. True religious belief always specifically excludes non-believers from the moral community, and sanctions actions upon those outside the community that are prohibited within it. This is true whether you are talking about Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, Communism, or Warmenism.

You are relying upon your immediate experience of Christianity, which from the viewpoint of any religious person of 100 years ago, is practically indistinguishable from atheism.

For that we can be thankful, but thanking God would be a serious case of misdirection.

Third, you are a bit harsh on theists who do charity. Is charity really motivated by desire to make personal sacrifice, or by desire to love one's neighbor?

No, I'm not being harsh, and your response has given the game away.

To the extent people are charitable out of sympathy for their fellow, less fortunate neighbors, then religion is irrelevant.

In contrast, where charity is forthcoming under the threat of God's retaliation (see tithing), then charity is really propitiation.

When an atheist is charitable, you can be certain it is out of fellow-feeling. When a theist does the same thing, you can't be sure: was it out of sympathy, or merely an act of bribery?

There was no reason for me to get into a fistfight, about the existence of God, with a bar full of atheists, and I had no intention of doing that. Rather, I objected to what I consider Amy's sloppy statement: "Can anyone dispute even one of [Hitchens'] points in any substantial way?"

A discussion about the existence of god, would have been very short. However, extending that minimalist concept to a maximilist conception is to make a whole series of claims that are occasionally dubious, and otherwise demonstrably false. The Christian God/Jesus/Holy Spirit does not exist. Allah does not exist. Thetans do not exist.

Mr. Wilson, while certainly articulate and personal enough, has not, as of 43 minutes and 7 seconds, substantially countered anything Hitchens said.

That said, I have never heard Hitchens pose Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, which is kind of odd, because it really backfoots every theist argument about God being the basis of morality. By relying on an evolutionary explanation for morality, he fails to note that the religious explanation of morality is inherently self contradictory.

(Google "Good minus God" "Opinionator" for the clearest discussion I have read in a long time.)

Your series of comments has been a pitiable parade of special pleading, retroactive codicils, pathetically mundane details, and sudden & imaginary new metrics. Are we entertained? Exactly what kind of believer is this stuff supposed to attract? These points mean so much to you. You jumped at Amy's "substantial way" with fangs and claws, as if by hacking at it with enough savagery, she'd politely back down and accept a new cosmology.

And along the way....

> Mr. Hitchens was a fine man.

Yeah? Wonderful. Thanks. We've been reading him for years, and a few of us had made a point of introducing ourselves. He's dead.


> I do not quite know what I think
> about it, but I shall

Full priss mode, very early on. "Thence" is a shitpile, with an "i.e." in the same sentence, like a surrounding piss puddle. Extra commas, "shall", "rather", "gentlemen", "intellectually hefty", "intellectually unrespectable", "our assertion", "flummoxed", "thus"...

But it's not just the words, it's the rhythms. Wanna read a fun sentence fragment? Tits out, bitches, it's showtime:

> You all, in this area, are idiots, and
> tragically so, and to your own detriment


Part of this is the usual internet thing of wanting to fake a few college degrees in an anonymous comment section... A petty yet irresistible do-over for high school humiliation and similar social collapses, a magical limbo forum where no one knows the truth about how your teachers called you dim, how your wife's a sexless shrew, how your kids are slow and emo, and how the career never gelled. Ever'body wants a little Aretha-style Are-Eee-Ess-Pee, right? But you got a really bad case.

I know the stink of an undergrad pretender. You're in a terrible rush to be seen as an effete fuckwad. You can slow down: We get it. It's not the vibe of an educated man, but one who's never made time for the humble study that makes expression work... The kind of focus and diligence for which Hitch was universally admired, even by those who wouldn't have trusted him for the time of day. Under real candlepower, words and ideas nourish each other, and people get thrilled... Even by portly middle-aged men with effeminate British accents.

And you bring us this:

> an anti-theist ought be able to disagree
> with an assertion that accessible spirituality
> is part of human existence

Accessible spirituality! The American way! They wanna git right in there have have their needs met! No muss, no fuss, no thinkin' out loud. When I go to a party and hear a California blond say "I'm a very spiritual person," I think to myself: I bet she's accessible!

Hitch had a whole chapter for your goofy assertion that atheism is a "faith-based truth". (As if that itself weren't shabby language, and Christ on a stick, you're so full of shit.) Religious believers whip that one out, like, a LOT. It's from the childish mind that likes to read "Everybody Poops" over and over...

But it's not true. Not everyone's system of belief is as cowardly, as vain, as clumsy or as socially destructive as yours. Many of us hold as our dearest thoughts not feelings of terror and supplication, but moments of logic and illumination. And if push came to shove, you'd choose the world of reason over the church's fantasies in a heartbeat. Fresh food for hunger, warmth in winter, medicine in illness, effective education for fools, and inexpensive wine on domestic flights are blessings you wouldn't live without, even as you prattle about "spiritual" nonsense.

Maybe this whole comment-fart sequence is your backhanded way of saying as much. (The other proselyte in the comment stack wasn't too eager to attract new believers by the power of loving Christian example, either.)

Accessible! Accessible! HEFT!!!!!!!

Flummoxed thusly, babe.

@ Jeff Guinn

I do not comprehend your most important point. I ask that you try, a second time, to communicate it to me. Thank you.

In this sentence,
"Therefore, every God has comprehensible only through material manifestations, (Bible, Q'uran, Book of Mormon) of revelation."

how do you mean "manifestation"?

Manifestation = display of God? as in display of who God is, and of his desires?
Manifestation = proof of God?
Manifestation = living word of God?

or, something other?

Continuing on with my failure to understand your most important point, you say:
"Theists universally take the position, with respect to their own religion but no other, that the existence of god is both necessary AND sufficient for their material manifestation — God — to objectively exist. Mr. Wilson's entire argument, as does yours, rests upon this fundamental mistake."

As best I can make out, you've gone a long way in order to say I have a mistaken perception of the nature of god.

This part, which I sense is your key point, baffles me:
"existence of god is both necessary AND sufficient for their material manifestation — God — to objectively exist".

I do not understand how you mean "material manifestation."

More importantly: I do not think the existence of some type of god equates to the existence of my Christian God. It seems plain, to me, that the existence of my Christian God equates to the existence of my Christian God. I am missing your key point. W/o my understanding of this, there is no point in going on to the remainder of your comment.

I think we're lookin' at the product of an Associates Degree, split major (Phenomenology / Feed Sales), Garden City Community College (Kansas), Class of '97. Looks like quite the rigorous program, too.

GCCC's Motto: From Here, You Can Go Anywhere! Hopeful matriculants, crying themselves to sleep out on the prairie, take that to mean I might get to date an exotic negress!

@ Jeff Guinn

As I have gone through my evening, your point has maybe become clear to me:

an anti-theist cannot grant intellectual respectability to an assertion of, for example: Christianity, insofar as Christianity can be shown, via the Bible, to be untrue.

Is this the correct interpretation of your point?

If so, let me first point out that Amy did not ask:

"Can anyone dispute even one of [Hitchens'] points about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, in any substantial way?"

Second,
the issue, of existence/nonexistence of God, does not lend itself to the language of proofs. Rather, it lends itself to philosophic discussion. Hitchens, Dawkins, all the rest of them, have not proven anything. They make faith based assumptions, just as I make faith based assumptions, just as you and Amy and friends make faith based assumptions.

Third,
I should note, again, that I do not think the existence of a god equates to that god being the Christian god. I have never thought such a thing. Some spiritual occurances cannot be specifically shown to be connected to Christianity. However, other spiritual revelation is specific to Christianity, as was some of the spritual revelation allegedly experienced by science fiction writer, and former enthusiastic and vocal atheist, John C. Wright. http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/09/a-question-i-never-tire-of-answering/

I do believe there is one God: the Christian God. But, following your logical example of a small g god which is shown to exist via spiritual revelation: I only believe such a god is the Christian God ... b/c that god has subsequently shown himself to be the Christian God.

Wordy.

Seriously, why even pretend it's about logic? If it was, rational people would agree. But we know better. It's not impressive. It smells like shame...

As perhaps it should.

You're working so hard to be one of popular crowd... I'm reminded of this tweet.

And this one. We'd all be tickled pinko if you decided to join the team. You got some reading to do, though.

… an anti-theist cannot grant intellectual respectability to an assertion of, for example: Christianity, insofar as Christianity can be shown, via the Bible, to be untrue

Is this the correct interpretation of your point?

No.

My point was that an atheist can grant intellectual respectability to an assertion that not only do some people feel a sense of spirituality, but also that assertion is prime facie evidence that some spiritual realm actually exists.

That has nothing to do with a religion, which is a set of specific statements about the nature of that realm.

Mr. Wilson, and you, continually relate a presumed existence of a spiritual realm as proof for the set of statements comprising Christianity.

It doesn't. The existence of a spiritual realm is essential for all religions, but whether there is such a thing says absolutely nothing about the theological edifices erected on the presumption.

I am an atheist, because I have concluded there is ample material evidence that all the claims that every religion has ever made about the characteristics of the presumed spiritual realm are wrong, full stop.

I am an anti-theist to the extent any particular theology uses their theological edifice as a bludgeon with which to impose their beliefs upon me.

Amy's question is precisely on point here. Mr. Wilson completely failed to substantively address anything. Where you insist Hitchens conceded a point to Mr. Wilson (54 minutes in), he did not. Mr. Wilson created a straw man out of what Hitch said, then before we get to see Hitch's response, the film cut to another scene.

… the issue, of existence/nonexistence of God, does not lend itself to the language of proofs. Rather, it lends itself to philosophic discussion. Hitchens, Dawkins, all the rest of them, have not proven anything.

I'll be you haven't actually read either God is Not Great, nor The God Delusion (or The End of Faith, or The Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism, etc.).

Because if you had, you wouldn't succumb to theist misapprehensions. Hitch's book scarcely spends a moment on the existence of god, but instead is 1) whether any God exists — whether any religion has any remotely plausible claim to be based upon objective reality, and 2) whether religious belief is, net, harmful.

When I make a statement that Christianity is completely mythical, that every claim to possess unique revelation is utterly wrong, I am prepared to back that up with a very material argument that either the God concocted by Christianity does not exist, or if such a thing exists, it is a moral monster beyond comprehension. (Theosophic problem: Biblical dietary restrictions. Hecatombs filled with those killed by water borne disease until humans discovered the germ theory of disease. God could have added boiling water before drinking to those restrictions, but didn't. Discuss.)

"Therefore, every God has comprehensible only through material manifestations, (Bible, Q'uran, Book of Mormon) of revelation."

how do you mean "manifestation"?

Here is the very first definition from my dictionary:

… an event, action, or object that clearly shows or embodies something, esp. a theory or an abstract idea : the first obvious manifestations of global warming.

The Q'uran and Hadith are physical manifestations of Allah.

To Muslims, Allah's existence is embodied in those books, and is comprehensible only through them. For people who are not Muslims, Allah has no existence outside of those books.

You are not a Muslim, so the ONLY place Allah exists is within those books.

Okay, take that one step further. The Christian God's does not have any actual existence outside the Bible.

You, and Mr. Wilson make two claims: a god exists, and it is a Christian God.

The former is unanswerable, the latter demonstrably so.

In the negative.

Jeff, you're unnecessarily courteous to a terrified, uneducated little mook who's asked you to blow people. Besides, we know he's already lost his precious faith.

When a tornado hits a brothel, it is an act of God; if it hits a church, it is a natural disaster.

Thank you for your response. Am too Christmas busy, now, to respond. Will do so in a couple of days. Robert Earle Keene's
"Merry Christmas from the Familiy" accurately describes my Christmas scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P37xPiRz1sg

Also, do, or do not, with this as you choose, but the Lord has laid it on my heart to link to this video of 4 first person stories of atheists who died, went to Hell, were saved by the hand of God, then restored to life. The men: a jerk of a criminal who was abused as a child, an art teacher on a tour of Europe, an Oklahoma Doctor who was partying with Hoyt Axton, a Soviet psychiatrist who made a world class discovery, then tried to defect to the U.S., and then the KGB attempted to murder him. Whatever you or I believe, the four stories are fascinating. The first story begins at 4:25 of the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00QG4WF-1ao

@Jeff Guinn

I note your assertion - re Matthew 24, at 54:00 of the video - that the film edited Hitchens before he could respond.

I rewatched the video, and disagree. The film cut to another camera. The sentence which was being spoken carried on, through the change of camera, without interruption.

Disputing Hitchens "in any substantial way" is a very low bar for Wilson to scale. My entire point: protest of Amy's careless scorning of Christian apologetics; protest of a bar which is so low as to afford zero respect to the intellectual seriousness of Christian scholars.

Father Robert Barron says many "new atheist" arguments are lifted from the atheist arguments of existentialists such as Sarte and Camus. Sarte and Camus acknowledged that humans have a desire for God. Yet, god does not exist, thus: Sarte's "life is absurd". Sarte's prescription: man makes a spirited and courageous declaration: I will go on! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI

A modern day atheist, at a level of philosophic theory, may dispute that mankind hungers for God. However, it remains intellectually substantial, and reasonable, to assert the opposite: mankind hungers for God. One may disagree, with Christians, while nevertheless granting that Christians make intellectually substantial arguments.

And, the above is the only point which I intended to assert. Yet, now, to limited extent, I will do what I have resisted doing: I will give another perspective re some of your assertions about god, theism, atheism. You have been so ... genuine in your responses, and forthcoming, that I feel moved to provide another perspective. I cannot possibly cover all of your assertions - that would require a book.

re: "Every God has existence only through a religion"

Truth exists ... independently of whether or not any of us percieve it.

Similarly: god exists ... independently of whether or not any of us perceive god.

re "Without any evidence supporting a religion's claims about its God...."

Why does personal testimony fail to count as evidence?

Don't Christians believe God exists outside of scientific proof? Hasn't the Christian God set up human life, in part, to be about free will choices to either know God, or to refuse to know God? Isn't it important, to the Christian God, that humans face choices about evidence which exists outside the bounds of scientific proof? Wouldn't a scientifically provable God ... devalue Christian choices to know God and to work with God? Does the Christian God, in searching out beings who will share eternity with Him, use cold intellectual rationality as the criteria for distinguishing? Or, rather, doesn't the Christian God's criteria have more to do with free will and choice, and with spirituality and love? Which are going to heaven: the highest IQs, or the greatest spirits?

re "[S]ince the source of each of these [religions] is the same — revelation — then there is absolutely no way to discern among all the competing religions which one is true...."

and re "The existence of a spiritual realm is essential for all religions, but whether there is such a thing says absolutely nothing about the theological edifices erected on the presumption"

There is a way - the only way - to discern among all competing religions: personal revelation. Once you determine that a god exists, then ask god to help you discern truth about him. Genuinely open yourself to god. See what happens.

From the Christian perspective, there is a problem with the assertion that God can be known via words on pages:
God can only be known, inside a person, via being invited into that person's life, and then coming inside that person and inspiring that person. God can inspire us to know him better via scripture. Yet, without the workings of God inside of us, we cannot (for instance: via our intellect + words on a page) know God. Many, who regularly attend Christian churches, will spend eternity in hell. They know words on pages, yet they do not know God. Heaven is not about cold intellectual conceptualization. It is about spirituality, love, faith.

Best wishes.