Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
We both agree that the Right generally needs to lie and distort to score any points: invisible hand, trickle down and so on. Their toolbox includes out-of-context distortion, strawman arguments and fabrication from whole cloth. However, you have just demonstrated that theists apparently need to engage in essentially the same activity. Rather than refer to a Fox equivalent such as winteryknight, you would do well to actually observe the actual exchanges or read one of Hitchens's books. Stated differently, do your own chewing and swallowing of actual unedited content rather than trust a Glenn Beck equivalent do it for you.
I personally don't think either side won the debate. My point overall was to demonstrate the essential fallacy of Hitchen's position, is that he is arguing with Christians against Christianity...when the world is full of theists who are not Christians, etc.
It is a debate that can not actually be won from either side in my opinion, but Hitchen's does use fallacious reasoning in his arguments. I have watched Hitchen's debates before, and his use of pure reasoning is vacuous at best.
There is no question that every single human being in the modern world is indoctrinated into the language, culture, and belief systems...and it is not really possible to be fully reasonable on these topics where emotion and preconditioning is involved.
What I observe is that the former theists who were fully faithful to God, generally become equally faithful to non God.
Both positions are faith based (no matter how much the atheists want to deny that truth) and implement certain assumptions that are circular in nature. There is no starting point of certainty in either position beyond the first position, which would be a clean slate and an "I don't know."
The move from "I don't know" to "I know" is faith based...for theist and atheist alike.
It is a debate that can not actually be won from either side in my opinion, but Hitchen's does use fallacious reasoning in his arguments. I have watched Hitchen's debates before, and his use of pure reasoning is vacuous at best.
There is no question that every single human being in the modern world is indoctrinated into the language, culture, and belief systems...and it is not really possible to be fully reasonable on these topics where emotion and preconditioning is involved.
What I observe is that the former theists who were fully faithful to God, generally become equally faithful to non God.
Both positions are faith based (no matter how much the atheists want to deny that truth) and implement certain assumptions that are circular in nature. There is no starting point of certainty in either position beyond the first position, which would be a clean slate and an "I don't know."
The move from "I don't know" to "I know" is faith based...for theist and atheist alike.
As my favorite philosopher Donald Rumsfeld used to say:
There are known knows, and unknown knows. There are also unknown unknows, or whatever (like the provability of any god's existence...)
Anyhow, I am getting confused here, the bottomline is, I won't get fooled again!!
P.S.: I might have missed the known unknows, but I am really confused at this point, I might even get fooled again...
Quote from Kassz007:
hilarious.
The math does not support a universe popping up from nothing, but it sure as hell does support god creating the universe from nothing!
Your words, not mine.
Atheists are the one's running around screaming that there is no God.
I have not seen one, Let us all Pray thread since I have been on this site. My question is why you are so compelled to save us from our delusions?
Become a doctor and treat schizophrenics or something, it would save you a lot of headaches
