Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[LORD KAL-EL]

Quote from Lucrum:

Sooooo...who's winning the argument so far?

Well lets just say it isn't looking so good for hitchens ( argument) once he gives up the ghost.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Lucrum:

Sooooo...who's winning the argument so far?

I won and with the fewest words. That's why the opposing side is frustrated.
Yeah me lol, I win a peach.

 

[stu]

Quote from bigarrow:

"It seems clear that there is fine tuning" Now that is irrefutable proof if you ask me. I don't know how you can argue with that stu.

I'd argue... "Too late. bigarrow won already" .

Then notice the anger a theist displays in calling me a liar for being honest .
Dictatorially demanding I have faith, telling me I do, insisting I have it.

Only because to a bigot like that 'It seems clear there is faith' .

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Its not suppose to settle anything..

When atheist say there is no evidence of a Creator .. my point is they are ignorant or lying.

I am not saying there is proof of creator . just some evidence to be considered.

You may reject it... you may say there could be almost infinite other universes.

You can come up with some other idea, you can even say you remain unconvinced....
but do not give me the no evidence statement.

There is no evidence of a Creator, unless the Creator is a quantum burp.

 

[stu]

Quote from MarketMasher:

There are those who have faith that there is a God.

There are those who have faith that there is no God.

Both are preachers of faith. 2 sides of the same coin.

There are those who find no reason to have any faith in God.

3 sides to the same coin.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

...That's my issue really with all the speculation of evolution...

The scientific theories are based on the available facts, such as they are. These theories are far more credible than the "theories" that people just pull out of their armpits that are in no way falsifiable. And as Karl Popper pointed out, a theory that is unfalsifiable is to that extent a weak theory. So let us not make the mistake of false equivalency.

This thread is about Christopher Hitchens. Unless posters have read any of his books, which I have, then they are not really in a position to judge his work. His books are in full and proper context and with a full bibliography of references. That is the place to start rather than accepting at face value the parsing out of carefully chosen snippets by his detractors. Thinking people should know better. You may not agree with the man, or even like him, but you should give him his due. He is a lot smarter than most of us here.

 

[LORD KAL-EL]

Quote from Gabfly1:

The scientific theories are based on the available facts, such as they are. These theories are far more credible than the "theories" that people just pull out of their armpits that are in no way falsifiable. And as Karl Popper pointed out, a theory that is unfalsifiable is to that extent a weak theory. So let us not make the mistake of false equivalency.

This thread is about Christopher Hitchens. Unless posters have read any of his books, which I have, then they are not really in a position to judge his work. His books are in full and proper context and with a full bibliography of references. That is the place to start rather than accepting at face value the parsing out of carefully chosen snippets by his detractors. Thinking people should know better.

I'm sorry but his drivel reminds me of mein kampf, too odious to slog through.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from LORD KAL-EL:

...too odious to slog through.

Thinking requires some effort but it's worth a try.

 

[LORD KAL-EL]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Thinking requires some effort but it's worth a try.

That's pretty funny coming from the likes of you.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from LORD KAL-EL:

That's pretty funny coming from the likes of you.

Are you referring to someone who reads content other than solely off the Internet?