Are The Claims Of Christianity Valid?

[WinePusher]

Hitchens 1
Hitchens 2
Dennett 1

This thread is a spin off of a thread in the "Members Only Chat." There's alot of stuff in these videos, and I only watched the Hitchens videos. But here are some questions based off the videos:

1) The Hitchens 2 video deals with miracles. Hitchens repeats David Hume's Argument aganist miracles. If you believe violations of the natural order are possible, present reasons why. If not, present reasons why.

2) The Hitchens 1 video deals with substitutionary atonement, and Hitchens asserts that it is an immoral doctrine, is similar to scapegoating and wipes away personal responsibility. Agree or disagree?

3) Feel free to rebutt or bring up any other material from these videos that I left out.

[flitzerbiest]

LOGIC


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

This has always seemed to me to be a flimsy case for the god concept in general, and an appallingly rotten argument for the kind of god advance by those who make it.

First of all, the first premise is not assumable. In western thought, it is taken as axiomatic, but in eastern thought, an infinite regression of causes is considered equally plausible. We don't really have any means of discerning which is correct.

The second premise horribly worded. Big Bang cosmology asserts, on the basis of good evidence, that the universe as it currently appears grew out of a massive (for lack of a more convenient term) singularity, operating under physical laws which can be described. It says nothing about what existed or did not exist as a precondition to this singularity.

Finally, the conclusion, even if true, would not even get you to supernaturalism, let alone to within a billion miles of a personal God. Looking back toward the Big Bang, we follow a regression of physical causes until we reach the horizon beyond which we cannot see. Therefore, the next cause beyond the horizon is supernatural? Really?!! If you were standing in a field and towards you was marching a line of a million sheep, stretching back to the visual horizon, would you assume that just beyond the horizon was a dragon? Why not another sheep?

The cosmological argument is an illogical sleight of hand, and its proponents show a remarkable tendency to stretch it well beyond the little merit it might have to points of great fancy: "The universe has a beginning, therefore Jesus loves me."

[Question Everything]

Hitchens makes a very good point when he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make, and points out that believers will make immoral statements or actions that an unbeliever could not also make.

[JoeyKnothead]

Hitchens makes a very good point when he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make, and points out that believers will make immoral statements or actions that an unbeliever could not also make.

Well said.

When it comes to claims of religious moral superiority I can't contain my laughter. When it comes to claims that such notions regarding morality would not come about without religious belief, I laugh again.

Morality is the product of a social being.

[JoeyKnothead]

Looks like I made a duplicate post, sorry.

[theopoesis]

Morality is the product of a social being.

Would you please clarify this, Joey? I might want to weigh in.

[cholland]

Hitchens makes a very good point when he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make, and points out that believers will make immoral statements or actions that an unbeliever could not also make.

I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean the unbeliever could not also say the words or believe them or come up with them? I think moral statements vary between religions, societies, and cultures so this needs clarification.

[Question Everything]

Hitchens makes a very good point when he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make, and points out that believers will make immoral statements or actions that an unbeliever could not also make.

I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean the unbeliever could not also say the words or believe them or come up with them? I think moral statements vary between religions, societies, and cultures so this needs clarification.

I don't see how an unbeliever would say that witches should be burned at the stake, and I don't see how an unbeliever would fly an airplane into a building with the intent of killing himself, innocent people on the plane, and innocent people on the ground.

[JoeyKnothead]

Morality is the product of a social being.

Would you please clarify this, Joey? I might want to weigh in.

It's amateur opinion time in the ol' town tonight...

Morality is the expression of our laws, our empathy, and our general need to behave in a social setting.

As we consider the sociopath (or antisocial personality disorder and it's related disorders) we can see that morality is borne of the need for folks to get along, as well as emerging empathy from being "aware" of ourselves and our surroundings. Where one does not get along with society, we find them most likely to engage in "immoral" behavior - and I propose this is typically a "lashing out" against a society's rules.

[cholland]

Hitchens makes a very good point when he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make, and points out that believers will make immoral statements or actions that an unbeliever could not also make.

I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean the unbeliever could not also say the words or believe them or come up with them? I think moral statements vary between religions, societies, and cultures so this needs clarification.

I don't see how an unbeliever would say that witches should be burned at the stake, and I don't see how an unbeliever would fly an airplane into a building with the intent of killing himself, innocent people on the plane, and innocent people on the ground.

I'm meant the positive part of the claim - "he challenges anyone to come up with a moral statement or action that an unbeliever could not also make." Moral statements differ between religions, societies, and cultures so of course there will be statements that an unbeliever will not make.

[Noodles]

Hitchens 1
Hitchens 2
Dennett 1

This thread is a spin off of a thread in the "Members Only Chat." There's alot of stuff in these videos, and I only watched the Hitchens videos. But here are some questions based off the videos:

1) The Hitchens 2 video deals with miracles. Hitchens repeats David Hume's Argument aganist miracles. If you believe violations of the natural order are possible, present reasons why. If not, present reasons why.

2) The Hitchens 1 video deals with substitutionary atonement, and Hitchens asserts that it is an immoral doctrine, is similar to scapegoating and wipes away personal responsibility. Agree or disagree?

3) Feel free to rebutt or bring up any other material from these videos that I left out.

Hitchens 1- I'm not sure this argument works quite the way Hitchens is saying. He takes substitutionary atonement out of Christian context. Which makes perfect sense for Him because He doesn't believe in Christianity. It needs to be evaluated within the full context of Christianity.

Hitchens 2- You do make a point in your question regarding this video. It is hard to present reasons for the supernatural if you only accept the natural as possible. Again this view makes perfect sense for Him because He doesn't believe in Christianity. It needs to be evaluated within the full context of Christianity.

I have listened/watched/read Christopher Hitchens before and my complaint has always been that He often takes ideas out of context and then argues against them.

Dennett seemed to make an argument that sounds like similar to the reverse of Pauls in Romans 1, interesting. Instead of saying everyone knows that God exists, He said we either don't care or we know God doesn't exist. Did I miss his argument for why there are no good reasons to believe in God, or did He just say that "everyone here accepts this" and then He moved on?