Why Religion Fails
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
- Status
That must be a recent change here are his own words from his 2010 memoir:
In his 2010 memoir Hitch-22, Hitchens wrote: "There was a time when I could reckon to outperform all but the most hardened imbibers, but I now drink relatively carefully." He described his current drinking routine on working-days as follows: "At about half past midday, a decent slug of Mr. Walker's amber restorative, cut with Perrier water (an ideal delivery system) and no ice. At luncheon, perhaps half a bottle of red wine: not always more but never less. Then back to the desk, and ready to repeat the treatment at the evening meal. No 'after dinner drinks' — most especially nothing sweet and never, ever any brandy. 'Nightcaps' depend on how well the day went, but always the mixture as before. No mixing: no messing around with a gin here and a vodka there."[132]
And of course he continues to confirm himself a Marxist...
Hitchens, as recently as 2009, has again referred to himself as "a Marxist". In a 2006 town hall meeting in Pennsylvania debating the Jewish tradition with Martin Amis, Hitchens commented on his political philosophy by stating "I am no longer a socialist, but I still am a Marxist".[6] Hitchens continues to affirm his respect for Marxist theory, including in 2009 in an article for The Atlantic entitled "The Revenge of Karl Marx". There he explains how Marx's economic analysis in Das Kapital has predicted many of the failures of the U.S. economy, including the late-2000s recession. He continues to regard both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky as great men, and the Bolsheviks' October Revolution as a necessary event in the modernization of Russia.[7]
[edit]
And take a few minutes to look up his comments about Irving, a leading holocaust denier.
Why did you feel the need to try to mislead up about the communist, alcoholic, holocaust denier? It's kind of embarassing he is your messiah isn't it?
If you were being honest with folks you would know he went a lot farther than that.
But you already lied about his Marxism and alcoholism, why should this be any different?
There were two blondes, and they had just came from a store.
The blonde that owned the mustang had locked her keys in the car. She was trying to pick the lock when she stoped to rest for a second.
When she sat down, her friend said, "Hurry up, it's starting to rain and the top's down!"
The blonde that owned the mustang had locked her keys in the car. She was trying to pick the lock when she stoped to rest for a second.
When she sat down, her friend said, "Hurry up, it's starting to rain and the top's down!"
You are a terribly small minded and bigoted person. Hitchens is no communist. Karl Marx' "Das Capital" is a monumentally important book. Likewise, Hitchens is no anti-semite. He REVIEWED a book by an anti-semite, Irving. And as far as his drinking is concerned, many great writers have been drinking heavily. Are you discounting Churchills views on Hitler because he was drinking heavily ( heavier than Hitchens, it must be said)
Why an evangelical preacher rejected God
After 19 years of evangelical preaching, Dan Barker realised his belief in God was not logical. Now one of America’s leading atheists, he explains why he rejected his former faith.
13 February 2011
If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of God is not obvious. There would be no “Does God Exist?” debates if the question were one of evidence.
By now someone would have won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating the existence of a hitherto unknown force in the cosmos. Any scientist in the world would jump at the chance to be the one who finally proved that God is real.
Of course, some philosophers and theologians feel that this can never happen because a supernatural being, by definition, is beyond the reach of science, which can only examine the natural world.
Nevertheless, most non-philosophers do feel that there is a wealth of evidence for a god. Miracles, changed lives, fulfilled prophecies, biblical revelation, the resurrection of Jesus, unsolved scientific questions (which they mistake for evidence), coincidences they say could not have happened by chance, inner experience, selfless acts of kindness and so on all prove to the believer that God exists.
Some offer attempts at rational arguments. Since many of these believers cannot imagine themselves as nonbelievers, they try to detect some ulterior motive for atheism. Rather than accept the straightforward statement that there is no evidence for a god, which allows the implication that their worldview might be wrong, many Christians have claimed to guess the “true” cause of unbelief.
Here are some of the ad hominem arguments I have heard:
“You resent moral guidelines and want to be free to live a life of sin and selfishness.”
“You dislike authority.”
“You want to be different and stir up trouble.”
“You are arrogant and hate God and want to be higher than God, like Lucifer (Satan).”
“Your heart is in the wrong place.”
“You have been hurt by Christians, or offended by certain nonrepresentative immoralities and crimes in the Church.”
“You are impatient and disappointed that not all your prayers are answered.”
“You feel let down by God, who didn’t answer your prayers the way you wanted.”
“You are cold, empty and pessimistic.”
“You are an angry person.”
“You are too stupid, blind, limited or afraid to see what is obvious to everyone else.”
“You have been seduced by scientists into refusing to accept the possibility of miracles.”
“You are an atheist because you don’t know the true meaning of love.”
None of these accusations is true. None is relevant. A strong clue that a person is arguing from a position of weakness is when they attack character rather than arguments and facts.
Bertrand Russell pointed out that ad hominem is a last-ditch defense of the losing side. My atheism has nothing to do with any of this. Even if it did, how would it add to the evidence for a god?
By the way, an ad hominem argument is not the same as a character attack. Ad hominem is when you use the character of your opponent to dismiss his or her argument. It would not be ad hominem to say that “My opponent is a thief,” but it would be to say that “My opponent’s conclusion is wrong because my opponent is a thief.” My opponent might be a horrible person with ulterior motives, but that would not make his or her reasoning or conclusion wrong.
The only times the opponent’s character is relevant in a debate are when the specific topic is morality, when it is fair to examine possible hypocrisy, or when eye-witness evidence is being offered and a history of dishonesty might weaken credibility. In those cases attacking character is not ad hominem.
If the Catholic Church, for example, claims that believing in Christ makes you a better person, then it is not unfair to point to the clergy sexual abuse scandal as evidence against that claim. (Who should be more representative of the religion than the priests?) It would be ad hominem and inappropriate, however, if I were to say, “Don’t believe anything the Church teaches because their leaders are pedophiles.”
When Peter (if the story is true) told his friends that he saw the resurrected Jesus, the fact that he had recently lied by denying that he knew Jesus lowers the credibility of his testimony. It is not ad hominem to point this out because it is not part of a logical argument; it is an assessment of the reliability of a witness.
The claim that I am an atheist because I don’t understand “love” is particularly ironic. I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian.
Love is not self-denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your fragile ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity or submission.
It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.
The argument about “anger” is equally intriguing. There is nothing wrong with anger if it is not expressed destructively. Paul said believers should get angry (Ephesians 4:26). Jesus got angry (Mark 3:5).
Christians get angry often. I am rarely angry, certainly never when I am discussing atheism with believers, but many Christians project their own feelings back toward me and claim that I am angry when I quote horrible bible verses or level criticisms of Christianity that make them angry.
What if I were to say, “The reason you are a Christian is because you are an angry person”? Many atheists, as well as believers, are often justifiably angry at the way religion clouds judgment and leads to dangerous behavior, but that is a result of reason and ethics, not a cause of it.
The word “atheist” is not a label; it is merely a description. (Although, of course, any word can be made into a label for PR reasons.) Since I do not believe in a god, I am by default described as an atheist. If there is evidence for a hypothesis, then I will gladly look at the data. If the claim itself is illogical, however, or if it is based on something other than honest investigation, it can be dismissed as wishful thinking, misunderstanding or a lie.
Theists do not have a god: they have a belief. Atheism is the lack of theism, the lack of belief in god(s). I am an atheist because there is no reason to believe.
Some theists say this is absurd. Just because a few atheists are unconvinced is no reason to discard the wealth of evidence accepted by the rest of the world, they insist. These believers would ask me to say: “I am an atheist because there is no evidence that I accept for the existence of God.”
Well, of course that’s true. I am the one being asked to judge and I have to use my reason. But if they are suggesting that I must agree that it is okay for them to accept the so-called evidences, I can’t do that. None of the “evidences” proves a supernatural being, so those who continue to believe are acting irrationally. If they want me to believe, too, they have to convince me, not just themselves.
To play the same game, I could argue that even though few adults believe in Santa Claus, there is plenty of evidence for his existence. A real Santa cannot be completely ignored, I might say, because he is revealed somewhere in the millions of youthful testimonials, song lyrics, stories and holiday displays, and is a time-tested cultural tradition. (My children actually heard reindeer hooves on the roof and sleigh bells ringing. It was years later when I told them that it was just me, their dad, playing with their imaginations.)
Does all the evidence for Santa disappear just because you are skeptical? I am free to believe in Santa Claus if I want. The evidence for Santa remains, I might say, regardless of your doubt.
Actually, the facts remain—but they are not evidence for a real Santa Claus. They are evidence for something else: culture, history and the charming imaginations of children. They are evidence for consumerism and goodwill, tale spinning and song writing, game playing, community stories and children’s literature. But they are not evidence for an actual Santa Claus.
We know this because each of the so-called proofs for Santa can be explained in natural terms and understood as part of a myth-making process. The fact that most adults believe in God is no more reason for me or anyone else to believe than the fact that most children believe in Santa.
The possibility that the belief in God is useful is no reason to believe, either. Many claim that their behavior is improved by their belief in God, but so is the behavior of millions of children during the middle weeks of December. Most of us have matured into “A-Santa-ists,” and some of us have matured into “A-theists.” We have grown up and we are satisfied with natural explanations for the myth.
Of course, even the staunchest skeptic admits that one natural explanation does not completely rule out other possibilities. Perhaps there is a higher level of understanding that allows Santa to exist even though we are unable to prove it yet. The fact that kids have creative imaginations does not necessarily indicate that everything they imagine must be false.
Even so, I can still claim that if there are adequate natural explanations that account for all the facts, then there is no driving need to search for supernatural explanations. This is just common sense.
Without such a rational limit there would be no end to the fanciful layers that could be added to any hypothesis. (This is usually referred to as Occam’s Razor, the principle that suggests we should normally accept the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions.)
The skeptic, slavishly honoring all the possibilities, could be forced to spend a lifetime running around trying to disprove an infinite number of fantastic theories.
For example, maybe Santa is an ambassador from a distant planetary outpost populated with red-and-white creatures who monitor the activities of specially chosen short people (elves and children?), seeking “conducive” humans as psychic vehicles for messages to holy reindeer that levitate when children dream during the winter solstice, with most adults being too hardened to believe. Can anyone prove that this scenario is untrue? (You read it here first.)
Since I don’t have the means or the inclination to disprove such an idea, is this paragraph now allowed to count as evidence for such a theory?
A rational person would give the preceding paragraph an exceedingly low probability (virtually zero). However, if some natural explanation arises for the existence of the paragraph (such as an admission that I just made it up), then the probability can be safely dropped to zero point zero and the discussion shifts from the reaches of outer space to the reaches of my inner brain.
Perhaps in a court of law it is more relaxed. In a trial any object or testimony that might have a relevance to the case may be considered “evidence” before there is a verdict. In science it is the other way around: a fact is admitted as evidence only after the connection has been made. I may insist something is evidence, but that does not make it so. There must be a connection and it must be clear.
Theists think the connection is clear. They have traditionally presented a large number of evidences for their faith, and at first glance those evidences appear overwhelming. For a skeptic to attack this plethora of widely accepted “proofs” might look like David confronting Goliath!
After all, atheists are a minority. How can so many good believers be so wrong? How can all of these facts be ignored?
They are not ignored. Remember that David defeated Goliath (in the story, not in history). Many have closely examined these “proofs” for a deity and have found them wanting.
The main reason I am an atheist is because these claims can be shown to have perfectly natural explanations and, as with Santa Claus, the probability for the existence of a supernatural being can be safely dropped to zero.
In the name of honesty, it must be dropped to zero.
http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a-pop-culture/why-an-evangelical-preacher-rejected-god-615.html
After 19 years of evangelical preaching, Dan Barker realised his belief in God was not logical. Now one of America’s leading atheists, he explains why he rejected his former faith.
13 February 2011
If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of God is not obvious. There would be no “Does God Exist?” debates if the question were one of evidence.
By now someone would have won the Nobel Prize for demonstrating the existence of a hitherto unknown force in the cosmos. Any scientist in the world would jump at the chance to be the one who finally proved that God is real.
Of course, some philosophers and theologians feel that this can never happen because a supernatural being, by definition, is beyond the reach of science, which can only examine the natural world.
Nevertheless, most non-philosophers do feel that there is a wealth of evidence for a god. Miracles, changed lives, fulfilled prophecies, biblical revelation, the resurrection of Jesus, unsolved scientific questions (which they mistake for evidence), coincidences they say could not have happened by chance, inner experience, selfless acts of kindness and so on all prove to the believer that God exists.
Some offer attempts at rational arguments. Since many of these believers cannot imagine themselves as nonbelievers, they try to detect some ulterior motive for atheism. Rather than accept the straightforward statement that there is no evidence for a god, which allows the implication that their worldview might be wrong, many Christians have claimed to guess the “true” cause of unbelief.
Here are some of the ad hominem arguments I have heard:
“You resent moral guidelines and want to be free to live a life of sin and selfishness.”
“You dislike authority.”
“You want to be different and stir up trouble.”
“You are arrogant and hate God and want to be higher than God, like Lucifer (Satan).”
“Your heart is in the wrong place.”
“You have been hurt by Christians, or offended by certain nonrepresentative immoralities and crimes in the Church.”
“You are impatient and disappointed that not all your prayers are answered.”
“You feel let down by God, who didn’t answer your prayers the way you wanted.”
“You are cold, empty and pessimistic.”
“You are an angry person.”
“You are too stupid, blind, limited or afraid to see what is obvious to everyone else.”
“You have been seduced by scientists into refusing to accept the possibility of miracles.”
“You are an atheist because you don’t know the true meaning of love.”
None of these accusations is true. None is relevant. A strong clue that a person is arguing from a position of weakness is when they attack character rather than arguments and facts.
Bertrand Russell pointed out that ad hominem is a last-ditch defense of the losing side. My atheism has nothing to do with any of this. Even if it did, how would it add to the evidence for a god?
By the way, an ad hominem argument is not the same as a character attack. Ad hominem is when you use the character of your opponent to dismiss his or her argument. It would not be ad hominem to say that “My opponent is a thief,” but it would be to say that “My opponent’s conclusion is wrong because my opponent is a thief.” My opponent might be a horrible person with ulterior motives, but that would not make his or her reasoning or conclusion wrong.
The only times the opponent’s character is relevant in a debate are when the specific topic is morality, when it is fair to examine possible hypocrisy, or when eye-witness evidence is being offered and a history of dishonesty might weaken credibility. In those cases attacking character is not ad hominem.
If the Catholic Church, for example, claims that believing in Christ makes you a better person, then it is not unfair to point to the clergy sexual abuse scandal as evidence against that claim. (Who should be more representative of the religion than the priests?) It would be ad hominem and inappropriate, however, if I were to say, “Don’t believe anything the Church teaches because their leaders are pedophiles.”
When Peter (if the story is true) told his friends that he saw the resurrected Jesus, the fact that he had recently lied by denying that he knew Jesus lowers the credibility of his testimony. It is not ad hominem to point this out because it is not part of a logical argument; it is an assessment of the reliability of a witness.
The claim that I am an atheist because I don’t understand “love” is particularly ironic. I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian.
Love is not self-denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your fragile ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity or submission.
It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.
The argument about “anger” is equally intriguing. There is nothing wrong with anger if it is not expressed destructively. Paul said believers should get angry (Ephesians 4:26). Jesus got angry (Mark 3:5).
Christians get angry often. I am rarely angry, certainly never when I am discussing atheism with believers, but many Christians project their own feelings back toward me and claim that I am angry when I quote horrible bible verses or level criticisms of Christianity that make them angry.
What if I were to say, “The reason you are a Christian is because you are an angry person”? Many atheists, as well as believers, are often justifiably angry at the way religion clouds judgment and leads to dangerous behavior, but that is a result of reason and ethics, not a cause of it.
The word “atheist” is not a label; it is merely a description. (Although, of course, any word can be made into a label for PR reasons.) Since I do not believe in a god, I am by default described as an atheist. If there is evidence for a hypothesis, then I will gladly look at the data. If the claim itself is illogical, however, or if it is based on something other than honest investigation, it can be dismissed as wishful thinking, misunderstanding or a lie.
Theists do not have a god: they have a belief. Atheism is the lack of theism, the lack of belief in god(s). I am an atheist because there is no reason to believe.
Some theists say this is absurd. Just because a few atheists are unconvinced is no reason to discard the wealth of evidence accepted by the rest of the world, they insist. These believers would ask me to say: “I am an atheist because there is no evidence that I accept for the existence of God.”
Well, of course that’s true. I am the one being asked to judge and I have to use my reason. But if they are suggesting that I must agree that it is okay for them to accept the so-called evidences, I can’t do that. None of the “evidences” proves a supernatural being, so those who continue to believe are acting irrationally. If they want me to believe, too, they have to convince me, not just themselves.
To play the same game, I could argue that even though few adults believe in Santa Claus, there is plenty of evidence for his existence. A real Santa cannot be completely ignored, I might say, because he is revealed somewhere in the millions of youthful testimonials, song lyrics, stories and holiday displays, and is a time-tested cultural tradition. (My children actually heard reindeer hooves on the roof and sleigh bells ringing. It was years later when I told them that it was just me, their dad, playing with their imaginations.)
Does all the evidence for Santa disappear just because you are skeptical? I am free to believe in Santa Claus if I want. The evidence for Santa remains, I might say, regardless of your doubt.
Actually, the facts remain—but they are not evidence for a real Santa Claus. They are evidence for something else: culture, history and the charming imaginations of children. They are evidence for consumerism and goodwill, tale spinning and song writing, game playing, community stories and children’s literature. But they are not evidence for an actual Santa Claus.
We know this because each of the so-called proofs for Santa can be explained in natural terms and understood as part of a myth-making process. The fact that most adults believe in God is no more reason for me or anyone else to believe than the fact that most children believe in Santa.
The possibility that the belief in God is useful is no reason to believe, either. Many claim that their behavior is improved by their belief in God, but so is the behavior of millions of children during the middle weeks of December. Most of us have matured into “A-Santa-ists,” and some of us have matured into “A-theists.” We have grown up and we are satisfied with natural explanations for the myth.
Of course, even the staunchest skeptic admits that one natural explanation does not completely rule out other possibilities. Perhaps there is a higher level of understanding that allows Santa to exist even though we are unable to prove it yet. The fact that kids have creative imaginations does not necessarily indicate that everything they imagine must be false.
Even so, I can still claim that if there are adequate natural explanations that account for all the facts, then there is no driving need to search for supernatural explanations. This is just common sense.
Without such a rational limit there would be no end to the fanciful layers that could be added to any hypothesis. (This is usually referred to as Occam’s Razor, the principle that suggests we should normally accept the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions.)
The skeptic, slavishly honoring all the possibilities, could be forced to spend a lifetime running around trying to disprove an infinite number of fantastic theories.
For example, maybe Santa is an ambassador from a distant planetary outpost populated with red-and-white creatures who monitor the activities of specially chosen short people (elves and children?), seeking “conducive” humans as psychic vehicles for messages to holy reindeer that levitate when children dream during the winter solstice, with most adults being too hardened to believe. Can anyone prove that this scenario is untrue? (You read it here first.)
Since I don’t have the means or the inclination to disprove such an idea, is this paragraph now allowed to count as evidence for such a theory?
A rational person would give the preceding paragraph an exceedingly low probability (virtually zero). However, if some natural explanation arises for the existence of the paragraph (such as an admission that I just made it up), then the probability can be safely dropped to zero point zero and the discussion shifts from the reaches of outer space to the reaches of my inner brain.
Perhaps in a court of law it is more relaxed. In a trial any object or testimony that might have a relevance to the case may be considered “evidence” before there is a verdict. In science it is the other way around: a fact is admitted as evidence only after the connection has been made. I may insist something is evidence, but that does not make it so. There must be a connection and it must be clear.
Theists think the connection is clear. They have traditionally presented a large number of evidences for their faith, and at first glance those evidences appear overwhelming. For a skeptic to attack this plethora of widely accepted “proofs” might look like David confronting Goliath!
After all, atheists are a minority. How can so many good believers be so wrong? How can all of these facts be ignored?
They are not ignored. Remember that David defeated Goliath (in the story, not in history). Many have closely examined these “proofs” for a deity and have found them wanting.
The main reason I am an atheist is because these claims can be shown to have perfectly natural explanations and, as with Santa Claus, the probability for the existence of a supernatural being can be safely dropped to zero.
In the name of honesty, it must be dropped to zero.
http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a-pop-culture/why-an-evangelical-preacher-rejected-god-615.html
So you agree he is a Marxist who wants a revolution to overthrow capitalism. And you get upset I call him a Communist? Seriously? he admits he used to be a Trotskiest...who are we to disagree?
He did far more than review that book. His personal friends have made very public statements about what Hitchens feels about the holocaust and has not just reviewed his book he agrees with its work in downplaying what happened in the holocaust. Irving often stays with Hitchens and they are big fans of each others work. Just the right guy to get an unbiased book review from.
And if you want to keep up on Hitchens maybe we should discuss the fact that he hopes for a civil war in the united states between the religious and the non-religious.
And if Hitchens' alcoholism is not important (especially when we are discussing utility) why did Canada Man choose to lie about it?
So when you get caught it two flat out lies about your messiah, all you can do is go back to cutting and pasting anecdotal literature.
Won't even make an effort to defend you credibility.
Keep driving that train of lies and hate.
Another reason why I think Hitchens is so popular in US is because of his English accent. It makes him appear more intellectual to his sheeple.
If he was born in Alabama and spoke with a Southern accent he wouldnt have half the followers he has now
If he was born in Alabama and spoke with a Southern accent he wouldnt have half the followers he has now
and help me out...what beliefs am I entrenched in?
And think about the basis of this thread for a moment. It is a thread created to preach hatred and disdain for a group of people. If it was about blacks or (just) jews, or gays or the Irish, do you think it is the right thing to sit by and watch people promote hate in our "lounge."?
This thread is not my creation, but I just don't like sitting by idly watching hatemongers try to poison people's minds with lies.
You know what they say about what it takes for evil to succeed?
And I know Canada Man is too far gone for rational help, but there is always the risk others who read his drivel might not be well informed enough to spot the lies and get fooled.
And you might be surprised to hear I have gotten some very supportive pms about my comments in this thread.
- Status
