Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[Ghost of Cutten]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Your argument against God proposes that he/it does not meet your criteria of evidence.

Okay, so how did you first come up with:

The concept that God is he/it

or

The concept that God necessarily must conform to your criteria of evidence.

or

That God depends upon any particular criteria of evidence in order to exist.

Oh I almost forgot - if you are challenging the validity of someone else's epistemology, you also have to defend your own. So, care to explain to us your process of belief-formation, and how it stands up to scrutiny?

For example, how do you form your beliefs, and how do you know that the belief-formation process you use is valid? In short, what are your grounds for thinking that your beliefs are true? Feel free to use the example of your god-belief to illustrate.

 

[killthesunshine]

are you kidding..none these guys optional, M&M's, Lord K-Y even have a faint idea in thier so-called brains of this God-thing of theirs let alone muster proof

 

[stu]

Quote from LORD KAL-EL:

IOW: Even he doesn't believe (non-belief ) the veracity of his own claptrap.
Pretty much depicts the status of all statements, claims, arguments explanations or anything posted by the religion of stu through stu speak in which words mean" whatever he wants it to be depending upon the circumstances of further reference."

Which is even more duplicitous than orwells newspeak.

I do know by now you are frustrated at not being able to successfully establish the false claim that I'm making a claim.

Pity you can't resolve your error rationally.

 

[LORD KAL-EL]

Quote from killthesunshine:

are you kidding..none these guys optional, M&M's, Lord K-Y even have a faint idea in thier so-called brains of this God-thing of theirs let alone muster proof

That would indeed present a problem if my goal was to convince you that God exists, but that's just not the case.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

You posted the link to the video yourself. And to compound your fuckwittery you are the one who also posted a link to only part of a Christian de Duve quote to misinform.
So go get them yourself.

As far as transcribing goes don't make me laugh. You couldn't even transcribe the word cite after I showed you 4 times.

the response we were expecting from a troll who is not the orginal stu, has sock puppets to make himself look like he has admirers and never backs up any of his statements with links or quotes.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Oh goody, another made up word from stujism.

No, no that's not right. Fuckwittery is a UK slang...

p.s. stujism is pronounced stooge-ism. I'll have it registered at urbandictionary.com which will make it a real word, just like fuckwittery...

Quote from stu:

You posted the link to the video yourself. And to compound your fuckwittery you are the one who also posted a link to only part of a Christian de Duve quote to misinform.
So go get them yourself.

As far as transcribing goes don't make me laugh. You couldn't even transcribe the word cite after I showed you 4 times.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

No, I don't need to defend my own to challenge another, that is a logical fallacy.

If you are having difficulty defending my challenge, I of course understand, as if my world were based on something that I denied was faith, then was shown to actually be a practice of faith, I would look like a fool...

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

Oh I almost forgot - if you are challenging the validity of someone else's epistemology, you also have to defend your own. So, care to explain to us your process of belief-formation, and how it stands up to scrutiny?

For example, how do you form your beliefs, and how do you know that the belief-formation process you use is valid? In short, what are your grounds for thinking that your beliefs are true? Feel free to use the example of your god-belief to illustrate.

 

[killthesunshine]

fuckwittery...thatt's hilarious! more like fuck-twit-ery though

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

No, I don't need to defend my own to challenge another, that is a logical fallacy.

If you are having difficulty defending my challenge, I of course understand, as if my world were based on something that I denied was faith, then was shown to actually be a practice of faith, I would look like a fool...

have you ever asked yourself why you need to believe in an afterlife? what can't you just accept your ultimate fate with dignity like every other living creature does , this groveling of yours is very unbecoming why are you soo special

 

[OPTIONAL777]

No, I don't need to ask myself that question.

The practice of faith is putting something before the intellect, upon recognition and acceptance that the human intellect is a flawed instrument.

Quote from killthesunshine:

have you ever asked yourself why you need to believe in an afterlife? what can't you just accept your ultimate fate like every other living creature does why are you soo special