Six biblical truths about money...

[CaptainObvious]

I never much appreciated his speeches much because he often says one thing and then dances around the same statement for the subsequent two hours. He takes the "superior view" of being atheist but belittles others who choose a different god/God as being superior over all other gods as idiots. I could never quite reconcile this other than resorting it to hipocrisy. Agree that he mostly aims at organized religion because he does not have a single argument that supports the non existence of God. Hence I always felt he somewhat confused his purpose in life, he wanted to critique organized religion, yet most of the time ended up debating religious believers without ever being able to win the debate and he knew he cannot win nor the other side. And yet he never zeroed in on organized religion in particular. That I always felt strange about Hitchens.

I agree that Hitch was angry and arrogant. I respected his opinions, agreeing with some, disagreeing with others, because he could admit he had no conclusive evidence that God did not exist. As earlier stated, his anger, as with most Atheists, was at organized religion itself. IMO, the real debate we can have is on the value of organized religion. The issue of God really isn't part of that debate for me. That is unknowable based on current evidence, or lack thereof. Do I believe in a Creator? Yes I do. I have no empirical evidence that would make a convincing argument for said belief, just personal experiences. For me the entire debate is on the good vs. the bad of religion. While doing some good in some areas, the bad dramatically outweighs the good, IMO.

 

[userque]

I agree that Hitch was angry and arrogant. I respected his opinions, agreeing with some, disagreeing with others, because he could admit he had no conclusive evidence that God did not exist. As earlier stated, his anger, as with most Atheists, was at organized religion itself. IMO, the real debate we can have is on the value of organized religion. The issue of God really isn't part of that debate for me. That is unknowable based on current evidence, or lack thereof. Do I believe in a Creator? Yes I do. I have no empirical evidence that would make a convincing argument for said belief, just personal experiences. For me the entire debate is on the good vs. the bad of religion. While doing some good in some areas, the bad dramatically outweighs the good, IMO.

We generally agree.

For all of "our" math, science, observations, experiments, etc.; we can't say whether, or not, our existence, and universe(s) were all created and/or set-into-motion by a more intelligent being.

So many argue, "Look! Look at how far math and science has come!" Even though finally discovering a few of the laws of "nature" (that existed well before us all), doesn't disprove the existence of a Being that may have actually had something to do with framing those laws...in the beginning.

But you're correct, it's un-debatable...except to "argue" that it is un-debatable against those that believe it is debatable.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways ..."

 

[CaptainObvious]

We generally agree.

For all of "our" math, science, observations, experiments, etc.; we can't say whether, or not, our existence, and universe(s) were all created and/or set-into-motion by a more intelligent being.

So many argue, "Look! Look at how far math and science has come!" Even though finally discovering a few of the laws of "nature" (that existed well before us all), doesn't disprove the existence of a Being that may have actually had something to do with framing those laws...in the beginning.

But you're correct, it's un-debatable...except to "argue" that it is un-debatable against those that believe it is debatable.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways ..."

"But you're correct, it's un-debatable...except to "argue" that it is un-debatable against those that believe it is debatable."
And what fun is that? Hence, internet forums to vent our frustrations.

 

[userque]

"But you're correct, it's un-debatable...except to "argue" that it is un-debatable against those that believe it is debatable."
And what fun is that? Hence, internet forums to vent our frustrations.

Yes, I obviously use humor, and I get what you're saying, but just to be clear--and for the record (and not to open a new debate); my humor will never confuse my position in a God debate. IOW, I would never advocate against the existence of God, for cheap sh.ts and giggles (and, imo, potentially suffer great consequences later.)

"Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."

 

[stu]

it's un-debatable

Un-debateable perhaps but not indisputable.
'That Which Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence' as Hitchens said.
God existence un-debateable maybe, but definitely questionable.

 

[userque]

Un-debateable perhaps but not indisputable.
'That Which Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence' as Hitchens said.
God existence un-debateable maybe, but definitely questionable.

Again, the original assertion wasn't that it was not questionable.

Once again, as stated by several here, the existence of God can't be scientifically proved beyond all doubt: Nor can the assertion by atheists etc. that God does not exist.

You came back to troll the new guy?

 

[stu]

Again, the original assertion wasn't that it was not questionable.

Once again, as stated by several here, the existence of God can't be scientifically proved beyond all doubt: Nor can the assertion by atheists etc. that God does not exist.

You came back to troll the new guy?

Yes well thing being, it's a badly flawed assertion as pointed out several times also.
I put up the Hitch quote 'cause as far as involving science goes, no evidence for God, God can be dismissed. No evidence against God, God can be dismissed. Not the evens-Stevens thing as it may first appear.

Because I post a view which you don't like doesn't mean I'm trolling. Your understandings of how science is applied and how trolls operate would seem to be equally mistaken.

 

[GRULSTMRNN]

I think you just posted a pretty stupid comment.

So, no evidence for the big bang hence can we then finally dismiss it as a load of garbage? It's incredibly stupid to say that one can dismiss something for lack of evidence. Plus this is as unscientific a statement as could possibly be. It would disqualify all theories and possibilities. I hope you misquoted or wrongly paraphrased Hitchens here.

Yes well thing being, it's a badly flawed assertion as pointed out several times also.
I put up the Hitch quote 'cause as far as involving science goes, no evidence for God, God can be dismissed. No evidence against God, God can be dismissed. Not the evens-Stevens thing as it may first appear.

Because I post a view which you don't like doesn't mean I'm trolling. Your understandings of how science is applied and how trolls operate would seem to be equally mistaken.

 

[userque]

Yes well thing being, it's a badly flawed assertion as pointed out several times also.
I put up the Hitch quote 'cause as far as involving science goes, no evidence for God, God can be dismissed. No evidence against God, God can be dismissed. Not the evens-Stevens thing as it may first appear.

Because I post a view which you don't like doesn't mean I'm trolling. Your understandings of how science is applied and how trolls operate would seem to be equally mistaken.

I don't think a response is necessary. You're flawed logic is obvious.

You may continue trolling.

 

[stu]

I think you just posted a pretty stupid comment.

So, no evidence for the big bang hence can we then finally dismiss it as a load of garbage? It's incredibly stupid to say that one can dismiss something for lack of evidence. Plus this is as unscientific a statement as could possibly be. It would disqualify all theories and possibilities. I hope you misquoted or wrongly paraphrased Hitchens here.

No I didn't misquote, wrongly paraphrase, or take Hitchens out of context and what he said makes perfect sense.

Also there is evidence of big bang. What are you talking about, scientific evidence goes all the way back to a singularity.

What exactly is stupid about saying if you assert something without any evidence , then it can be dismissed on the same grounds?
There is nothing unscientific about that.
To say it would dismiss all theories is to misunderstand how the scientific method works.

Science is about probability and likelihoods, not "proved beyond all doubt:".
Both scientifically and philosophically it is very much likely the universe requires no creator.
Un-debateable my a$$.