Menu Bar
Needs Plugin: Flash
Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Christopher Hitchens, who is the author of "God Is Not Great", debates Al Sharpton at the New York Public Library on May 7 2007.
Debate topics include God, religion, and atheism.
Debate moderated by Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine.
Debate topics include God, religion, and atheism.
Debate moderated by Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine.
Jul 16, 2007 7:25 AM
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Hahaha, man, that woman who asked the first question...really changes the image of people with faith, eh?
But anyways, a good debate. The whole point of things like this is to get people to THINK.
It's still up to you to choose what to believe.
But anyways, a good debate. The whole point of things like this is to get people to THINK.
It's still up to you to choose what to believe.
By: teichou
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
From what is contained in the video, I think Rev. Sharpton has an excellent understanding of what personal beliefs he holds, but a very limited understanding of what the frightening fundamentalist movement holds as untouchable truth.
He also appears to be ignorant of the leaps and bounds science has made in the field of moral study. Maybe someone can link to a video of the explanation of the study into moral behaviour of chimpanzees and their seemingly natural tendency to work together when nesscessary, and their state of mind to reject those chimps who attack others, the bad apples if you will.
He seems to be well versed with his personal religious beliefs, but impervious to the overbearing evidence against his arguments. Must be why he was so interested in discussing what Christopher didn't answer rather than discussing what he did answer.
He also appears to be ignorant of the leaps and bounds science has made in the field of moral study. Maybe someone can link to a video of the explanation of the study into moral behaviour of chimpanzees and their seemingly natural tendency to work together when nesscessary, and their state of mind to reject those chimps who attack others, the bad apples if you will.
He seems to be well versed with his personal religious beliefs, but impervious to the overbearing evidence against his arguments. Must be why he was so interested in discussing what Christopher didn't answer rather than discussing what he did answer.
By: Shiggety
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Yeah, you're right about Al Sharpton here.
But I do think that this debate is a good reflection on how the majority on both sides of the table would conduct an argument like this: the believers questioning why the one has no faith or belief in God, and the other questioning why the faithful have become so dogmatic to a point where its suffocating all the good precepts that are supposed to come from religion.
I think most people who do not believe in God or who have, as us Christians say, "turned away from God", have had some kind of souring experience related to religion.
I will agree with one of Christopher Hitchen's points in this debate: I will believe what I want to believe, so don't try to shove your beliefs down my throat, or something to that effect.
But I do think that this debate is a good reflection on how the majority on both sides of the table would conduct an argument like this: the believers questioning why the one has no faith or belief in God, and the other questioning why the faithful have become so dogmatic to a point where its suffocating all the good precepts that are supposed to come from religion.
I think most people who do not believe in God or who have, as us Christians say, "turned away from God", have had some kind of souring experience related to religion.
I will agree with one of Christopher Hitchen's points in this debate: I will believe what I want to believe, so don't try to shove your beliefs down my throat, or something to that effect.
By: teichou
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I am a theist, Christian in fact, however I do at times become a closet agnostic. I try and deal with my faith honestly, not defensively.
That said, I think Sharpton was a poor choice for this debate. The an is primarily an activist who flies under the flag of Reverend. It was painful to watch.
I do believe that God cannot be proven scientifically, and for many that is the primary reason why some do not believe.
I do have a question for those who do consider themselves atheist or agnostic, and this is a humble, honest question for myself: If God were a true reality, what sort of physical evidence would you expect to find?
That would really be a good discussion.
That said, I think Sharpton was a poor choice for this debate. The an is primarily an activist who flies under the flag of Reverend. It was painful to watch.
I do believe that God cannot be proven scientifically, and for many that is the primary reason why some do not believe.
I do have a question for those who do consider themselves atheist or agnostic, and this is a humble, honest question for myself: If God were a true reality, what sort of physical evidence would you expect to find?
That would really be a good discussion.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
The thing is, that you would find evidence that would support the "stuff" written in the bible.
as christians say, everything in the bible is true. if it were so, at least some dates would be correct. "Somehow" everything is proven to be not the way its written in the bible (i.e. the world is older than 5000 years. evolution created men etc.).
Of course the big advantage believe has is, that after all evidence against it was presented you can still bring the argument of "hey thats why its called faith and god is no physical form so there can be no evidence".
i still tend to say there might be a god (for me with the same chances that there might be a teapot orbitting the sun), but if, why should he be excactly the christian god? every religion has its bibles books and evidence... but somehow nothing of it is true. its btw. funny what some popular muslim religous freaks say(and this is sometimes even taught in school). they say evolution is something thought up by the christians to attack muslim believe...
religion is mostly about bullshitting every other beeing as long as they dont think the same as you. sadly... we cant choose. if you are brought up as a christian theres a 90% chance you will believe in that stuff. search googlevid for dawkins. i like that guy :D
as christians say, everything in the bible is true. if it were so, at least some dates would be correct. "Somehow" everything is proven to be not the way its written in the bible (i.e. the world is older than 5000 years. evolution created men etc.).
Of course the big advantage believe has is, that after all evidence against it was presented you can still bring the argument of "hey thats why its called faith and god is no physical form so there can be no evidence".
i still tend to say there might be a god (for me with the same chances that there might be a teapot orbitting the sun), but if, why should he be excactly the christian god? every religion has its bibles books and evidence... but somehow nothing of it is true. its btw. funny what some popular muslim religous freaks say(and this is sometimes even taught in school). they say evolution is something thought up by the christians to attack muslim believe...
religion is mostly about bullshitting every other beeing as long as they dont think the same as you. sadly... we cant choose. if you are brought up as a christian theres a 90% chance you will believe in that stuff. search googlevid for dawkins. i like that guy :D
By: DerDobs
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I, for one, do *not* believe the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. Granted we may not be able to do so now, but to say that science may never offer an explanation for the God Hypothesis is rather arrogant and presumptuous. I am confident that if we possessed the proper technology, we could offer a definitive answer using scientific processes when the time comes.
In the meantime, however, science can at the very least address the God Hypothesis according to the same processes that address any other hypothesis: if an hypothesis lacks sufficient evidence, we must reject that hypothesis. And until any tangible evidence becomes available, as scientists we should act responsibly and reject the God Hypothesis.
The prerequisite to this logic, of course, is the recognition of the God Hypothesis being a scientific question, which many do not wish to acknowledge because 'it's not what they were taught as children'. The question 'Is there a God?' can be asked by a scientist just as much as by a chaplain, teacher, philosopher, or taxi cab driver. The difference lies only in how one chooses to rationalize the answer in the face of no supporting evidence.
In the meantime, however, science can at the very least address the God Hypothesis according to the same processes that address any other hypothesis: if an hypothesis lacks sufficient evidence, we must reject that hypothesis. And until any tangible evidence becomes available, as scientists we should act responsibly and reject the God Hypothesis.
The prerequisite to this logic, of course, is the recognition of the God Hypothesis being a scientific question, which many do not wish to acknowledge because 'it's not what they were taught as children'. The question 'Is there a God?' can be asked by a scientist just as much as by a chaplain, teacher, philosopher, or taxi cab driver. The difference lies only in how one chooses to rationalize the answer in the face of no supporting evidence.
By: Overmann
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
The type of physical evidence depends on what type of god you're talking about. A god who constantly intervenes in the world in extraordinary ways would leave heaps of evidence. A deist's god would leave no evidence at all, except perhaps for a bit dating back to the very beginning of the universe.
By: quisph
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Well for starters simply present your self, if he trully is an all powerfull being what better evidence than to simply show yourself in a manner that leaves no doubt or questions. If he trully created the heavens and stars and everything forth that led up to this very moment how diffuclt would it be to simply manifest in front everyone and say "Hello im God"
By: heywhatsup65
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
As I have said before in other comment threads, there is no real way (at least not for the time being) to totally disprove the existence of some kind of supreme (or fairly powerful) being somewhere in the universe. However, the evidence that we do have concerning evolution makes such an existence quite unlikely.
The case is different when we talk about a personal god, i.e. the god(s) of nearly every ancient and modern religion. It would be one thing for religion to just say a god exists, but it doesn't stop there. Instead, it tells us the nature of god and the will of god (how to live, who to love, what is moral & immoral). Furthermore, it presents a very specific view of the universe (god created the universe, we go to hell or heaven after we die, we have souls, etc).
The problem with these claims made by religion is that the vast majority of them can be disproved. Sometimes all it takes is a little common sense. Other times it takes some scientific knowledge and rigorous logic. And here is where religion and god get into trouble. If the worldview and major claims of religion are false, then what can be said about god? The answer is not much. If the claims of religion can be disproved and there is little to no real evidence of a supreme being, then it doesn't do much good to believe in one.
As to your actual question, I suggest you take a look at this link: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
It describes what it would take to convert most atheists to a religion (or prove the existence of a personal god).
The case is different when we talk about a personal god, i.e. the god(s) of nearly every ancient and modern religion. It would be one thing for religion to just say a god exists, but it doesn't stop there. Instead, it tells us the nature of god and the will of god (how to live, who to love, what is moral & immoral). Furthermore, it presents a very specific view of the universe (god created the universe, we go to hell or heaven after we die, we have souls, etc).
The problem with these claims made by religion is that the vast majority of them can be disproved. Sometimes all it takes is a little common sense. Other times it takes some scientific knowledge and rigorous logic. And here is where religion and god get into trouble. If the worldview and major claims of religion are false, then what can be said about god? The answer is not much. If the claims of religion can be disproved and there is little to no real evidence of a supreme being, then it doesn't do much good to believe in one.
As to your actual question, I suggest you take a look at this link: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
It describes what it would take to convert most atheists to a religion (or prove the existence of a personal god).
By: chronomitch
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
G.W. Bush is probably the most Jesus-y president ever. All the praying in the world doesn't seem to get the water or electricity flowing in Baghdad.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Richard Dawkins and James Randy are very indignant men who believe that someone of faith is not due one ounce of respect. While, at the same times, it is this notion of faith that has perpetuated man in the face of crisis and difficult times (i.e. Word War II). In fact, it is faith that has helped man cross many barriers that were well beyond reason. Faith has been the fuel of many great human accomplishments.
To be honest, I think that Dawkins betrays his own brand of reasoning by using his platform to work out their own personal issues from growing up, while under the guise of intellectual absolutes that attacks all faith. He is a pissed off man who can't stand people like him. And in doing so, has become the very thing he hates.
And while Dawkins and Randy love use the "Thor" comment to question why they should ever believe in a Chrsitian-Judeo God, they are implying that religion has not, cannot, will not progress. Religion and spirituality have always progressed, and that's exactly why we don't believe in Thor.
Our understanding and interpretation of the universe does develop and expand in terms of the religion. There are things that we've abandoned, other things we've reformed. You're right, I don't believe in Thor. But I'm sure scientists no longer believe in blood-letting or that maggots appear out of thin air. Science has abandoned many things and moved on, just as some modern religions have done the same.
Even my own understanding of God, Jesus, Miracle, The Church, The Afterlife is very different from those of 500, 100, even 20 years ago. There is a certain brand of religion that is being attacked by so many, and they make the mistake of pouring all religion into one bowl and lighting it on fire. How ignorant and arrogant. Honestly, have Dawkins or Randy ever kissed a girl?
This is no offense to those who insist on atheism. It's just that I grow wearly of the absoluteness of it and the hate-mongering that takes place. We're all just people, for crying out loud.
To be honest, I think that Dawkins betrays his own brand of reasoning by using his platform to work out their own personal issues from growing up, while under the guise of intellectual absolutes that attacks all faith. He is a pissed off man who can't stand people like him. And in doing so, has become the very thing he hates.
And while Dawkins and Randy love use the "Thor" comment to question why they should ever believe in a Chrsitian-Judeo God, they are implying that religion has not, cannot, will not progress. Religion and spirituality have always progressed, and that's exactly why we don't believe in Thor.
Our understanding and interpretation of the universe does develop and expand in terms of the religion. There are things that we've abandoned, other things we've reformed. You're right, I don't believe in Thor. But I'm sure scientists no longer believe in blood-letting or that maggots appear out of thin air. Science has abandoned many things and moved on, just as some modern religions have done the same.
Even my own understanding of God, Jesus, Miracle, The Church, The Afterlife is very different from those of 500, 100, even 20 years ago. There is a certain brand of religion that is being attacked by so many, and they make the mistake of pouring all religion into one bowl and lighting it on fire. How ignorant and arrogant. Honestly, have Dawkins or Randy ever kissed a girl?
This is no offense to those who insist on atheism. It's just that I grow wearly of the absoluteness of it and the hate-mongering that takes place. We're all just people, for crying out loud.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
"Richard Dawkins and James Randy are very indignant men who believe that someone of faith is not due one ounce of respect."
I'm not sure they're disrespecting the individual as much as they are disrespecting the belief and, yes, there is a difference.
"Faith has been the fuel of many great human accomplishments."
I imagine you'd be hard put to prove none of the 'great human accomplishments' you refer to were inspired by creativity as opposed to faith.
"...while under the guise of intellectual absolutes that attacks all faith."
The promotion of reason attacks all faith? No surprise there.
"And while Dawkins and Randy love use the "Thor" comment to question why they should ever believe in a Chrsitian-Judeo God, they are implying that religion has not, cannot, will not progress."
You're missing the meaning behind the Thor reference. Dawkins' purpose is to indicate how the absurdity we now find in age-old religions is still prevalent in so-called modern theistic religions and how modern religions deserve no greater treatment or regard because of it.
"Our understanding and interpretation of the universe does develop and expand in terms of the religion."
Other way around, bud. Religion changes to reconcile discoveries made in science. Ever heard of intelligent design?
"Science has abandoned many things and moved on, just as some modern religions have done the same."
Science abandons concepts for very different reasons (new evidence suggests otherwise, more comprehensive theories are established, etc.) while individual religions change their tenets and practices arbitrarily. (I'm sorry, was there some justifiable reason behind kicking off Limbo?)
"Honestly, have Dawkins or Randy ever kissed a girl?"
Is it your aim to be productive or insulting? Either way, how does that pertain to anything?
"There is a certain brand of religion that is being attacked by so many, and they make the mistake of pouring all religion into one bowl and lighting it on fire."
What mistake have they made and why do you consider it a mistake?
"This is no offense to those who insist on atheism."
Maybe you'd let them decide that?
"It's just that I grow wearly of the absoluteness of it and the hate-mongering that takes place. We're all just people, for crying out loud."
I'm confident Dawkins and Randy are likewise weary of the absoluteness and hate-mongering of religion. Maybe that's what drives them to abolish it as opposed to your suspicion that they're grappling with 'personal issues'? We are all just people, you're precisely right. So we do we need something as divisive as religion to prevent us from acknowledging and embracing this?
I'm not sure they're disrespecting the individual as much as they are disrespecting the belief and, yes, there is a difference.
"Faith has been the fuel of many great human accomplishments."
I imagine you'd be hard put to prove none of the 'great human accomplishments' you refer to were inspired by creativity as opposed to faith.
"...while under the guise of intellectual absolutes that attacks all faith."
The promotion of reason attacks all faith? No surprise there.
"And while Dawkins and Randy love use the "Thor" comment to question why they should ever believe in a Chrsitian-Judeo God, they are implying that religion has not, cannot, will not progress."
You're missing the meaning behind the Thor reference. Dawkins' purpose is to indicate how the absurdity we now find in age-old religions is still prevalent in so-called modern theistic religions and how modern religions deserve no greater treatment or regard because of it.
"Our understanding and interpretation of the universe does develop and expand in terms of the religion."
Other way around, bud. Religion changes to reconcile discoveries made in science. Ever heard of intelligent design?
"Science has abandoned many things and moved on, just as some modern religions have done the same."
Science abandons concepts for very different reasons (new evidence suggests otherwise, more comprehensive theories are established, etc.) while individual religions change their tenets and practices arbitrarily. (I'm sorry, was there some justifiable reason behind kicking off Limbo?)
"Honestly, have Dawkins or Randy ever kissed a girl?"
Is it your aim to be productive or insulting? Either way, how does that pertain to anything?
"There is a certain brand of religion that is being attacked by so many, and they make the mistake of pouring all religion into one bowl and lighting it on fire."
What mistake have they made and why do you consider it a mistake?
"This is no offense to those who insist on atheism."
Maybe you'd let them decide that?
"It's just that I grow wearly of the absoluteness of it and the hate-mongering that takes place. We're all just people, for crying out loud."
I'm confident Dawkins and Randy are likewise weary of the absoluteness and hate-mongering of religion. Maybe that's what drives them to abolish it as opposed to your suspicion that they're grappling with 'personal issues'? We are all just people, you're precisely right. So we do we need something as divisive as religion to prevent us from acknowledging and embracing this?
By: Overmann
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
One thing at a time friend, and please, loosen up a bit. Again, you're speak with such certainly with no consideration.
"I imagine you'd be hard put to prove none of the 'great human accomplishments' you refer to were inspired by creativity as opposed to faith."
I already made an example: WWII. For soldiers and commanding officers, the risks many of them took were not always “because it made sense on paper”, but because they had a hope beyond “what makes sense”. Ask any WWII infantry soldier, or anyone who has fought for a cause that is seemingly beyond hope.
Faith, even if it were nothing but a fraud, has perpetuated humanity. This is something that Dawkins never likes to mention. For some reason, he thinks the world actually makes enough sense to man abandon faith altogether. Even if faith is a fraud, now is not the time in human history to abandon it.
I mention WWII because our minds should turn to the many points in human history when hope and faith were required for people to press on in terrible circumstances. There are cases where reason would give up, while faith is actually capable of pressing further. Man is remarkable for having both reason and faith, which at their finest work in companionship.
Creativity, as you mentioned, to those of faith is considered to be one of the prime components of being in God’s image. Call it what you will, to many creativity is a religious celebration of a creative God who designed man to be co-creators with him. In fact, some have called Worship “Creativity in Love”.
As usual on forums, no one is actually listening. People are only as wise as they are humble. Good night.
"I imagine you'd be hard put to prove none of the 'great human accomplishments' you refer to were inspired by creativity as opposed to faith."
I already made an example: WWII. For soldiers and commanding officers, the risks many of them took were not always “because it made sense on paper”, but because they had a hope beyond “what makes sense”. Ask any WWII infantry soldier, or anyone who has fought for a cause that is seemingly beyond hope.
Faith, even if it were nothing but a fraud, has perpetuated humanity. This is something that Dawkins never likes to mention. For some reason, he thinks the world actually makes enough sense to man abandon faith altogether. Even if faith is a fraud, now is not the time in human history to abandon it.
I mention WWII because our minds should turn to the many points in human history when hope and faith were required for people to press on in terrible circumstances. There are cases where reason would give up, while faith is actually capable of pressing further. Man is remarkable for having both reason and faith, which at their finest work in companionship.
Creativity, as you mentioned, to those of faith is considered to be one of the prime components of being in God’s image. Call it what you will, to many creativity is a religious celebration of a creative God who designed man to be co-creators with him. In fact, some have called Worship “Creativity in Love”.
As usual on forums, no one is actually listening. People are only as wise as they are humble. Good night.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I'ts true... some people did alot of things because of faith in god. But ALOT "ALOT ALOT ALOT" of people did die because of faith.
Just like the SS... they had faith as well... in hitler and their vaterland... some old guys over here still have hitler photos in their flats.
Faith isnt something that needs a god. I have faith in the people i do stuff with... not in a god... (even if i was "betrayed" by some friends i didnt loose it... )
Just like the SS... they had faith as well... in hitler and their vaterland... some old guys over here still have hitler photos in their flats.
Faith isnt something that needs a god. I have faith in the people i do stuff with... not in a god... (even if i was "betrayed" by some friends i didnt loose it... )
By: DerDobs
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Good point. You're right, faith doesn't require a god. But, certainly, God requires faith. Everyday, I have to struggle with my faith and reconcile it what I learn and what I observe about life. I have some really touhg days, and some really good days. Faith is very difficult, because doubt is ever present, and it should be.
I would venture to say, that there are likely many athesists who wrestle with their own doubts, wondering if there is something more.
You also make good point that the object of faith seems to be a very decisive factor (i.e. having faith in Hitler vs. having faith in God). You've made the point that having faith isn't enough, but rather the object of your faith matters.
I would venture to say, that there are likely many athesists who wrestle with their own doubts, wondering if there is something more.
You also make good point that the object of faith seems to be a very decisive factor (i.e. having faith in Hitler vs. having faith in God). You've made the point that having faith isn't enough, but rather the object of your faith matters.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
"Ask any WWII infantry soldier, or anyone who has fought for a cause that is seemingly beyond hope."
They fought because they had to, not because their faith dictated they should. Faith had nothing to do with why America fought back.
"Faith, even if it were nothing but a fraud, has perpetuated humanity."
Humanity has perpetuated with faith alongside it, which doesn't mean faith had anything to do with said perpetuation. Correlation does not equal causation.
"Even if faith is a fraud, now is not the time in human history to abandon it."
Then when? All major civil liberties in history have had to have been fought for to be attained. The right of children to make up their own minds and not be subjected to religious tradition (circumcision) is no different. Just because something will not be easy is by no means reason not to try. Your WWII example comes to mind.
"I mention WWII because our minds should turn to the many points in human history when hope and faith were required for people to press on in terrible circumstances."
Unless God somehow influenced the outcome of WWII, which I just realized you may or may not believe, I don't see how these soldiers you so frequently cite relied upon anything other than themselves to accomplish what they needed to. It's true that humans have a demonstrated, enduring capacity for hope even against seemingly impossible odds (take the lottery, for instance), which I suspect is the underlying principle you are referring to when you say they relied on faith.
You seem unable to distinguish between hope and faith. Faith in the context you are implying requires a belief in a deity, while hope does not. And if that is not the context in which you are using faith, why not just say hope?
"Creativity, as you mentioned, to those of faith is considered to be one of the prime components of being in God’s image."
Are you saying that's how you view creativity?
"As usual on forums, no one is actually listening."
True; I'm reading.
They fought because they had to, not because their faith dictated they should. Faith had nothing to do with why America fought back.
"Faith, even if it were nothing but a fraud, has perpetuated humanity."
Humanity has perpetuated with faith alongside it, which doesn't mean faith had anything to do with said perpetuation. Correlation does not equal causation.
"Even if faith is a fraud, now is not the time in human history to abandon it."
Then when? All major civil liberties in history have had to have been fought for to be attained. The right of children to make up their own minds and not be subjected to religious tradition (circumcision) is no different. Just because something will not be easy is by no means reason not to try. Your WWII example comes to mind.
"I mention WWII because our minds should turn to the many points in human history when hope and faith were required for people to press on in terrible circumstances."
Unless God somehow influenced the outcome of WWII, which I just realized you may or may not believe, I don't see how these soldiers you so frequently cite relied upon anything other than themselves to accomplish what they needed to. It's true that humans have a demonstrated, enduring capacity for hope even against seemingly impossible odds (take the lottery, for instance), which I suspect is the underlying principle you are referring to when you say they relied on faith.
You seem unable to distinguish between hope and faith. Faith in the context you are implying requires a belief in a deity, while hope does not. And if that is not the context in which you are using faith, why not just say hope?
"Creativity, as you mentioned, to those of faith is considered to be one of the prime components of being in God’s image."
Are you saying that's how you view creativity?
"As usual on forums, no one is actually listening."
True; I'm reading.
By: Overmann
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
One more thing.
"Again, you're speak with such certainly with no consideration."
Don't give me that sh*t. You're speaking with just as much certainty and from my standpoint are not giving any consideration to my view. See how quickly that assertion falls to pieces?
"Again, you're speak with such certainly with no consideration."
Don't give me that sh*t. You're speaking with just as much certainty and from my standpoint are not giving any consideration to my view. See how quickly that assertion falls to pieces?
By: Overmann
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
“They fought because they had to, not because their faith dictated they should."
Ask a soldier. They would probably know better than you.
"Faith had nothing to do with why America fought back.”
You’re right, politically faith in God had nothing to do with the war, but it had everything do with the personal experience of individuals caught knee deep in the hell of battle. I wasn’t talking about nations, but people.
"It's true that humans have a demonstrated, enduring capacity for hope even against seemingly impossible odds (take the lottery, for instance), which I suspect is the underlying principle you are referring to when you say they relied on faith."
NOTE: I mean people believing in a presence beyond their reason to accomplish what they could never accomplish themselves.
"Then when? All major civil liberties in history have had to have been fought for to be attained. The right of children to make up their own minds and not be subjected to religious tradition (circumcision) is no different. Just because something will not be easy is by no means reason not to try. Your WWII example comes to mind."
Good luck with your war against human instinct.
"Are you saying that's how you view creativity?"
No, I was saying how some theists view it, since you were trying to some how use creativity as something that disguises itself as faith.
"You're speaking with just as much certainty and from my standpoint are not giving any consideration to my view. See how quickly that assertion falls to pieces?"
No, I’m not certain at all. I wrestle with my faith daily. I just don’t appreciate you taking each line I wrote and nullifying it. That’s not a conversation. The way you wish to converse is waiting for people to make a statement so you can add your condescending commentary (like I'm finding myself doing right now. Shame on me!). I feel like I was handed my homework from my grade school teacher with red marks all over it. It makes a person no longer feel like expressing any opinion to people who insist on being asses.
In all humility, while I have opinions, I’m actually asking questions. If all you want to do feed me remarks I can care less what you have to say, no matter how certain you think you are and how stupid you think I am.
""As usual on forums, no one is actually listening."
True; I'm reading."
You just see words across a page, my friend. Even when reading, people are still failing to “listen”.
Ask a soldier. They would probably know better than you.
"Faith had nothing to do with why America fought back.”
You’re right, politically faith in God had nothing to do with the war, but it had everything do with the personal experience of individuals caught knee deep in the hell of battle. I wasn’t talking about nations, but people.
"It's true that humans have a demonstrated, enduring capacity for hope even against seemingly impossible odds (take the lottery, for instance), which I suspect is the underlying principle you are referring to when you say they relied on faith."
NOTE: I mean people believing in a presence beyond their reason to accomplish what they could never accomplish themselves.
"Then when? All major civil liberties in history have had to have been fought for to be attained. The right of children to make up their own minds and not be subjected to religious tradition (circumcision) is no different. Just because something will not be easy is by no means reason not to try. Your WWII example comes to mind."
Good luck with your war against human instinct.
"Are you saying that's how you view creativity?"
No, I was saying how some theists view it, since you were trying to some how use creativity as something that disguises itself as faith.
"You're speaking with just as much certainty and from my standpoint are not giving any consideration to my view. See how quickly that assertion falls to pieces?"
No, I’m not certain at all. I wrestle with my faith daily. I just don’t appreciate you taking each line I wrote and nullifying it. That’s not a conversation. The way you wish to converse is waiting for people to make a statement so you can add your condescending commentary (like I'm finding myself doing right now. Shame on me!). I feel like I was handed my homework from my grade school teacher with red marks all over it. It makes a person no longer feel like expressing any opinion to people who insist on being asses.
In all humility, while I have opinions, I’m actually asking questions. If all you want to do feed me remarks I can care less what you have to say, no matter how certain you think you are and how stupid you think I am.
""As usual on forums, no one is actually listening."
True; I'm reading."
You just see words across a page, my friend. Even when reading, people are still failing to “listen”.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
"Ask a soldier. They would probably know better than you."
For my argument, I don't have to: 1. Ever heard of something called "The Draft"? and 2. do you think faith had anything to do with that? You want to assert that it was faith that drove soldiers in WWII to persist? Okay, but you need supporting evidence.
"...but it had everything do with the personal experience of individuals caught knee deep in the hell of battle. I wasn’t talking about nations, but people."
Again you're not distinguishing between 'hope' and 'faith'. Which was it, exactly, that caused these soldiers to continue fighting: was it their conviction that there is a God and heaven or was it their hope and want for a better world in which they and their families could live in peace?
"I mean people believing in a presence beyond their reason to accomplish what they could never accomplish themselves."
Except that they *did* accomplish it themselves. Personally I think it's disrespectful to suggest their success in the war was not their own doing.
"No, I was saying how some theists view it, since you were trying to some how use creativity as something that disguises itself as faith."
Um, I was referring to how I interpreted 'great human accomplishments' to mean the preservation and development of art and music and how that is much more appropriately attributed to creativity, not faith. Although I suspect that to one such as yourself, the two are very different. After all, it was faith, not creativity, that inspired the writing of the Bible, yes?
"Good luck with your war against human instinct."
Childhood genital mutilation is human instinct? Really?
"No, I’m not certain at all."
Incidentally, neither am I. I am atheist because the only thing I am certain about is that we do not currently possess the means to know or even fathom the workings or presence of a deity and that we should not act as though we do. It's not reasonable and does the pursuit of truth an injustice.
"I feel like I was handed my homework from my grade school teacher with red marks all over it."
And rightfully so. You want to assault Dawkins' character and integrity? Well and good, but I and others may have something to say about it.
"It makes a person no longer feel like expressing any opinion to people who insist on being asses."
You've not expressed this opinion to me, you expressed it on a public forum. It's irresponsible to think your opinion, when expressed on a public forum, will not show up on the screens of people who will disagree.
"You just see words across a page, my friend. Even when reading, people are still failing to 'listen'."
It may or may not have occurred to you I'm being wholly sarcastic but I fully understand what you're saying and why you're saying it.
For my argument, I don't have to: 1. Ever heard of something called "The Draft"? and 2. do you think faith had anything to do with that? You want to assert that it was faith that drove soldiers in WWII to persist? Okay, but you need supporting evidence.
"...but it had everything do with the personal experience of individuals caught knee deep in the hell of battle. I wasn’t talking about nations, but people."
Again you're not distinguishing between 'hope' and 'faith'. Which was it, exactly, that caused these soldiers to continue fighting: was it their conviction that there is a God and heaven or was it their hope and want for a better world in which they and their families could live in peace?
"I mean people believing in a presence beyond their reason to accomplish what they could never accomplish themselves."
Except that they *did* accomplish it themselves. Personally I think it's disrespectful to suggest their success in the war was not their own doing.
"No, I was saying how some theists view it, since you were trying to some how use creativity as something that disguises itself as faith."
Um, I was referring to how I interpreted 'great human accomplishments' to mean the preservation and development of art and music and how that is much more appropriately attributed to creativity, not faith. Although I suspect that to one such as yourself, the two are very different. After all, it was faith, not creativity, that inspired the writing of the Bible, yes?
"Good luck with your war against human instinct."
Childhood genital mutilation is human instinct? Really?
"No, I’m not certain at all."
Incidentally, neither am I. I am atheist because the only thing I am certain about is that we do not currently possess the means to know or even fathom the workings or presence of a deity and that we should not act as though we do. It's not reasonable and does the pursuit of truth an injustice.
"I feel like I was handed my homework from my grade school teacher with red marks all over it."
And rightfully so. You want to assault Dawkins' character and integrity? Well and good, but I and others may have something to say about it.
"It makes a person no longer feel like expressing any opinion to people who insist on being asses."
You've not expressed this opinion to me, you expressed it on a public forum. It's irresponsible to think your opinion, when expressed on a public forum, will not show up on the screens of people who will disagree.
"You just see words across a page, my friend. Even when reading, people are still failing to 'listen'."
It may or may not have occurred to you I'm being wholly sarcastic but I fully understand what you're saying and why you're saying it.
By: Overmann
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
"After all, it was faith, not creativity, that inspired the writing of the Bible, yes?"
Yes, it was faith that inspired scriptures. Let's makes one thing clear: I don't believe in a "Bible", but approach each of the 66 books as seperate works that desereve their own seperate cristicisms. Some writings, though motivated by faith, were written with liberty and an immense amount of creativity, such as Psalms, Songs of Solomon, Proverbs and several others. Oh, and don't forget the Parables of Jesus: brilliant creativity. For some, truth is in art.
"You want to assault Dawkins' character and integrity? Well and good, but I and others may have something to say about it."
Wow, I didn't realize atheists had patron saints that were inerrant. Just believe everything they say and bow down, while simply plagiarizing and regurgitating their witty little comments to make anyone of faith feel foolish. It's just as pathetic as Christian Apologists. It has less to do with intellectualism and more to do with being mean-spirited and prejudice.
Yes, it was faith that inspired scriptures. Let's makes one thing clear: I don't believe in a "Bible", but approach each of the 66 books as seperate works that desereve their own seperate cristicisms. Some writings, though motivated by faith, were written with liberty and an immense amount of creativity, such as Psalms, Songs of Solomon, Proverbs and several others. Oh, and don't forget the Parables of Jesus: brilliant creativity. For some, truth is in art.
"You want to assault Dawkins' character and integrity? Well and good, but I and others may have something to say about it."
Wow, I didn't realize atheists had patron saints that were inerrant. Just believe everything they say and bow down, while simply plagiarizing and regurgitating their witty little comments to make anyone of faith feel foolish. It's just as pathetic as Christian Apologists. It has less to do with intellectualism and more to do with being mean-spirited and prejudice.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
To be honest, I actually find myself cheering on Dawkins, because he gives religion the punch in the face it sometimes deserves. However, I receive Dawkins as I would anyone else.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I'd love to atually continue this conversation. However, I must know one thing: Do you believe that a person of faith is worthy of any respect, and actually has something to contribute to your reason? If so, then we can continue to talk. If not, then farewell, friend.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I respect people for their behavior and the things they have done. not for having faith or not.
Still i think its the wrong way, to do everything for a god. For me, this would feel like doing it to get something out of the deal (i.e. i go to heaven not hell).
I do the "good things" i do, because i feel it is right and because i think, that our community would work alot better if we wouldnt hate everyone else so much. Its a simple thing... everyone working together = good. everyone trying to steal etc. = bad and will destroy communitys.
Still i think its the wrong way, to do everything for a god. For me, this would feel like doing it to get something out of the deal (i.e. i go to heaven not hell).
I do the "good things" i do, because i feel it is right and because i think, that our community would work alot better if we wouldnt hate everyone else so much. Its a simple thing... everyone working together = good. everyone trying to steal etc. = bad and will destroy communitys.
By: DerDobs
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I like talking to you DerDobs. We can actually have a conversation with honest opinions with out calling one another idiots.
You're right, if you're going to judge people it should probably be on the basis of what they do, not how they think.
In response to "Still i think its the wrong way, to do everything for a god. For me, this would feel like doing it to get something out of the deal (i.e. i go to heaven not hell)." To be honest, most thesists don't live like that daily or hourly. They shop, go to work, have sex, watch sports and make decisions in ways that have nothing to do with their professed faith. For the most part, religious people live relatively selfish lives.
It's just when conversations go to "issues of utmost concern" (i.e. origin, purpose and the questionsy of death) their opinions become very strong. As someone who tries to be a follower of Jesus, I learned a long time ago that there would be nothing I could to please God (if he really exists).
My faith (on good days) leads me to do things, not to please God, but to do what I think is the right thing to do, without paybacks (i.e. a kind word, actually talking to a homeless person, helping someone through a crisis, not talking back to a pissed off clerk behind the register). In those moments, this idea of heaven rarely comes to mind.
My faith has taught me mercy and social justice. I have a hard time finding that in a world that seems to be preach survival of the fittest.
You're right, if you're going to judge people it should probably be on the basis of what they do, not how they think.
In response to "Still i think its the wrong way, to do everything for a god. For me, this would feel like doing it to get something out of the deal (i.e. i go to heaven not hell)." To be honest, most thesists don't live like that daily or hourly. They shop, go to work, have sex, watch sports and make decisions in ways that have nothing to do with their professed faith. For the most part, religious people live relatively selfish lives.
It's just when conversations go to "issues of utmost concern" (i.e. origin, purpose and the questionsy of death) their opinions become very strong. As someone who tries to be a follower of Jesus, I learned a long time ago that there would be nothing I could to please God (if he really exists).
My faith (on good days) leads me to do things, not to please God, but to do what I think is the right thing to do, without paybacks (i.e. a kind word, actually talking to a homeless person, helping someone through a crisis, not talking back to a pissed off clerk behind the register). In those moments, this idea of heaven rarely comes to mind.
My faith has taught me mercy and social justice. I have a hard time finding that in a world that seems to be preach survival of the fittest.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
"I have a hard time finding that in a world that seems to be preach survival of the fittest."
Who preaches that? Atheism is not about taking away good ways of behavior. It's about telling people that it's not because of a god that you should do good things.
religions have some good things about them but as soon as you take it a few steps to far it gets disasterous. Just look at religious extremist groups. they believe they do the right thing for god.
I dont want to go out and tell people they are stupid to believe in god or something like that. i just want them to think about why they believe and why excactly in this one god you call god. You can't "convert"(this is actually the wrong word here) someone who really believes into something supernatural, to be an atheist.
have fun :)
Who preaches that? Atheism is not about taking away good ways of behavior. It's about telling people that it's not because of a god that you should do good things.
religions have some good things about them but as soon as you take it a few steps to far it gets disasterous. Just look at religious extremist groups. they believe they do the right thing for god.
I dont want to go out and tell people they are stupid to believe in god or something like that. i just want them to think about why they believe and why excactly in this one god you call god. You can't "convert"(this is actually the wrong word here) someone who really believes into something supernatural, to be an atheist.
have fun :)
By: DerDobs
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
I by no means was saying that Atheism preaches survival of the fittest (though I could argue that point with natural selection). I was pointing out the philosophy of the general popuation of man.
I refuse to just have "faith", rather, I've chosen a very specific brand of faith that is narrowly focused and directed. It is the faith that I have chosen that has demonstrated and taught me these virtues, not this world.
You said that you want people to really think about why they believe. Good point. The door should swing both ways for both sects. Theists get in the hot seat because people say they blindly believe some second-hand authority without really looking deeply into it.
But can't the same be said of Atheists? Aren't they simply going by what they consider authoritative figures and simply taking their word for it (second-hand, even third, forth or fifth) without really looking more deeply into the research itself?
Now, I'm not talking about researchers and scientists or prophets and apostles, but everyone else outside of the lab and muse. We are all believing second-hand. The theory of evolotuon is not as air-tight as many preach it to be. The belief in a Creator is not as reasonable as many preach it to be. But, perception is reality, I suppose.
This is not to say Evolution is wrong and those who believe it are rediculous. What I'm saying is that they are in just as much danger of blindly believing second-hand resources and subjectively interpreting everything around them with that bias, just as the religious seem to do.
Many Atheists believe "There is no God, and it doesn't matter". But most people, if they concluded that there was no God would say, "There is no God, and it DOES matter". It's heart-breaking for many who come to that sort of realization. People want purpose and meaning, and I don't think that's a vice. Most people find some sort of meaning in this belief in An Uncaused Cause, A Prime Mover.
If there is no God, then evolution really screwed man over in the deepest most cruel way, by deceiving us into thinking there was. I think Dawkins can blame The God Delusion on Evolution itself. There's no evidence behind what I'm saying, I'm just being pensive.
Cheers
I refuse to just have "faith", rather, I've chosen a very specific brand of faith that is narrowly focused and directed. It is the faith that I have chosen that has demonstrated and taught me these virtues, not this world.
You said that you want people to really think about why they believe. Good point. The door should swing both ways for both sects. Theists get in the hot seat because people say they blindly believe some second-hand authority without really looking deeply into it.
But can't the same be said of Atheists? Aren't they simply going by what they consider authoritative figures and simply taking their word for it (second-hand, even third, forth or fifth) without really looking more deeply into the research itself?
Now, I'm not talking about researchers and scientists or prophets and apostles, but everyone else outside of the lab and muse. We are all believing second-hand. The theory of evolotuon is not as air-tight as many preach it to be. The belief in a Creator is not as reasonable as many preach it to be. But, perception is reality, I suppose.
This is not to say Evolution is wrong and those who believe it are rediculous. What I'm saying is that they are in just as much danger of blindly believing second-hand resources and subjectively interpreting everything around them with that bias, just as the religious seem to do.
Many Atheists believe "There is no God, and it doesn't matter". But most people, if they concluded that there was no God would say, "There is no God, and it DOES matter". It's heart-breaking for many who come to that sort of realization. People want purpose and meaning, and I don't think that's a vice. Most people find some sort of meaning in this belief in An Uncaused Cause, A Prime Mover.
If there is no God, then evolution really screwed man over in the deepest most cruel way, by deceiving us into thinking there was. I think Dawkins can blame The God Delusion on Evolution itself. There's no evidence behind what I'm saying, I'm just being pensive.
Cheers
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Having listened and read I find myself coming back to the point that always seems to be glossed over.
Rev. Sharpton, after being told by an atheist that he could neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, insisted that therin lay the argument. That it rested on the atheist to disprove God, because of course, if you can't disprove it, it must be true.
This is one place where the sleight of hand of religion lies: "if you can't disprove it, it must be true" is the rallying cry of the theists. It is used to explain why faith in an unseeable, incomprehensible being can be instilled simply because it matches family beliefs, societal beliefs and literary assertions. "Dad said it's true. Father Thomas said it's true. They wouldn't lie." Don't upset your elders, and don't question those who have taught you well.
How silly the argument is when applied to everyday life. For example: The last coke is gone from the fridge. although I have four roommates, I assert that God has taken it. Noone can prove this false, so it must be true. It's as clearly silly as "the dog ate my homework" but somehow theists can't comprehend the logic. Somehow they who are so accepting cannot accept that it's just as possible that there may not be a God. That their faith is a choice made and reinforced through emotions - including doubt, a biggie in religious circles - indoctrination and community.
Then you listen to most atheists and they say - over and over to the point of exhaustion - "I understand you have this belief. I'm okay with you having this belief. I just think it's silly and I want nothing to do with it. Could we please not base our society on it? Can't we as a species grow up enough that we don't require a metaphysical babysitter? Can't you treat me equally even though I'm not a member of your church?" I have rarely heard an atheist say, "No. You are not allowed to believe in God." What I have heard is, "The danger of your belief is that mythology inevitably grows up around it, and people's lives are controlled - and frequently damaged - through the additional beliefs that get tacked on to the statement, "There is a God." Most atheists I know say the same thing, "Absolute faith in one unprovable thing opens the door to be led into belief in all sorts of other unprovable things." God isn't the danger, man is.
Reverend Sharpton proved this when he somehow missed the point that as God is unknowable, he cannot know if God is indeed, great.
Rev. Sharpton, after being told by an atheist that he could neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, insisted that therin lay the argument. That it rested on the atheist to disprove God, because of course, if you can't disprove it, it must be true.
This is one place where the sleight of hand of religion lies: "if you can't disprove it, it must be true" is the rallying cry of the theists. It is used to explain why faith in an unseeable, incomprehensible being can be instilled simply because it matches family beliefs, societal beliefs and literary assertions. "Dad said it's true. Father Thomas said it's true. They wouldn't lie." Don't upset your elders, and don't question those who have taught you well.
How silly the argument is when applied to everyday life. For example: The last coke is gone from the fridge. although I have four roommates, I assert that God has taken it. Noone can prove this false, so it must be true. It's as clearly silly as "the dog ate my homework" but somehow theists can't comprehend the logic. Somehow they who are so accepting cannot accept that it's just as possible that there may not be a God. That their faith is a choice made and reinforced through emotions - including doubt, a biggie in religious circles - indoctrination and community.
Then you listen to most atheists and they say - over and over to the point of exhaustion - "I understand you have this belief. I'm okay with you having this belief. I just think it's silly and I want nothing to do with it. Could we please not base our society on it? Can't we as a species grow up enough that we don't require a metaphysical babysitter? Can't you treat me equally even though I'm not a member of your church?" I have rarely heard an atheist say, "No. You are not allowed to believe in God." What I have heard is, "The danger of your belief is that mythology inevitably grows up around it, and people's lives are controlled - and frequently damaged - through the additional beliefs that get tacked on to the statement, "There is a God." Most atheists I know say the same thing, "Absolute faith in one unprovable thing opens the door to be led into belief in all sorts of other unprovable things." God isn't the danger, man is.
Reverend Sharpton proved this when he somehow missed the point that as God is unknowable, he cannot know if God is indeed, great.
By: catgrin
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
"Reverend Sharpton proved this when he somehow missed the point that as God is unknowable, he cannot know if God is indeed, great."
Oh ho, but *you* can't prove he *isn't*!
Just kidding, catgrin. I agree completely with what you wrote.
Oh ho, but *you* can't prove he *isn't*!
Just kidding, catgrin. I agree completely with what you wrote.
By: Overmann
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Narf! For once I really am LOL.
By: catgrin
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Excellent points, and well spoken.
I have found that 90% of Religious Theists (Christians) are not very well educated, and don't necessarily know why they believe. They attempt to give scientific reasons, but they don't hold up very well, then they default to what Sharpton said.
I think what Christians are trying to say Atheists is "Your being convinced that God doesn't exist doesn't convince me of the same thing". It drives Athesists crazy that a person can believe in a god for reasons other than evidence. Theists tend to believe there are things in this universe that are beyond physical evidence or knowledge. However, they pretend to play scientist and betray their own professed faith by preaching psuedo-science.
Look, all people have different intellectual appetites. For some people, only a few points will convince them of God being a reasonable possibility. Others need more, but fail to be satisfied. People believe (or don't believe) many things for very different reasons. That's why I find it interesting that tend to break people down into two categories. It's much more complex than that. Hey, we have our entires lifetimes to figure these things out for ourselves. Cheers.
I have found that 90% of Religious Theists (Christians) are not very well educated, and don't necessarily know why they believe. They attempt to give scientific reasons, but they don't hold up very well, then they default to what Sharpton said.
I think what Christians are trying to say Atheists is "Your being convinced that God doesn't exist doesn't convince me of the same thing". It drives Athesists crazy that a person can believe in a god for reasons other than evidence. Theists tend to believe there are things in this universe that are beyond physical evidence or knowledge. However, they pretend to play scientist and betray their own professed faith by preaching psuedo-science.
Look, all people have different intellectual appetites. For some people, only a few points will convince them of God being a reasonable possibility. Others need more, but fail to be satisfied. People believe (or don't believe) many things for very different reasons. That's why I find it interesting that tend to break people down into two categories. It's much more complex than that. Hey, we have our entires lifetimes to figure these things out for ourselves. Cheers.
By: garrettis
Re: Atheism and God: Christopher Hitchens vs Al Sharpton
Good response catgrin! Best post on the tread.
By: Hummm
