Another piece of the debate Turek vs. Hitchens at VCU in Richmond, VA complete at: www.vimeo.com CH argument: There is an infinite possibility of “god-assertions” (Ra, Jehova, Huitzlopochtli, etc. up to the “personal god”) that cannot be disproven. Atheists however do not deny those gods existence, which is logically impossible, they simply say there is no empirical evidence for such an assertion. Deism, while being empirically not necessary -science offers better explanations- is also not Theism: the argument from design does not imply (and cannot) the Christian god or any interventionist god. Further, the spiritual language of many scientists does not necessarily mean they believe in god. Interesting for those who want to learn how to argue consistently: en.wikipedia.org
Tags: deism · Hitchens · theism · Thinking · wishful25 Comments
There is no “order” in the Universe, as far as the logic and realism is employed. There is only a set of parameters making it possible for us to exist. We have no idea what different parameters would produce and what kind of “order” it would bring. It’s an after-the-fact construction, rather than a “fine-tuning”
I love Hitchens. However, when he says we know everything about the universe to suggest deism is wrong is a little stupid. I worded it wrong, but he mention it past the 5 minute mark.
I have trouble believing the Big bang theory. How can everything exist from nothing? If the universe and time itself is expanding, what is it expanding into? An atheist believes nothing came from everything in the form of creation, and funnily the big bang theory agrees with it, but excludes god? Stupid imo.
There is something incredibly sexy about Hitch’s brilliance.
@coolandcalculated Have you read Mein Kampf? There’s multiple references to god in it.
No Hitler was a catholic, not an atheist. But that’s beside the points. None of the tyrants in history ever did evil deeds in the name of atheism.
@Melvin6566842 i am a deist in the thomas paine sense but i hold no illusion that man could ever fathom the will or existence of such a being. or that such a being would have any reason to limit himself through the revealed religions.
a wise man said… if i can know the mind of God, then God isn’t God
i seem much discussion and confusion about which category deism is a subset of. the correct answer is in fact THEISM. in the broadest sense, of course. theism is the belief in at least one deity, but, although not a requisite, the word connotes allegorical description of it. deism is not allegorical belief at all. a similar relationship is agnosticism and atheism. while agnosticism is in fact atheism, no one calls it so, and it’s understandable.
Power-hungry people purposely oppress common truth to prevent us from achieving great civilizations…because great civilizations don’t reward power-hungry people.
They do this primarily through religion.
Compare early Egypt to later Egypt: watch?v=M23Y08cfyhY
I want to bear that mans children.
And I’m a straight guy. THATS how awesome Hitchens is.
@lourak part4
The manlike seems to have originated simultaniously with coming of a warriorclass in tribalsocieties.
Religion should be about opening the minds to possibilties. To being openminded and considering all views. Not the oppisite as it had become: dogmatic. It is the search toward the ultimate answers: why are we here? And what comes next? Religion should always hold to its basis in philosophy. Or else it is not worth the paper it is written on.
@lourak part 3 It is then no mere coïncedence that Christianity came about in a time where the Roman Empire grew so quickly and brought so many new people in contact with each other. Especially because Romans liked to explore other religions. It was kind of a fashion thing for them at the time.
About this higher entity always having been a manlike God, is simply not true. The origin of religion lies in the worship of nature and ancestors.
@lourak part 2
For example there is nothing in the bible against slavery. Because the bible is mostly a Roman book and implenting that rule would have collapsed their economy.
About the many religions argument. Herein lies some irony. Religion used to improve on itself as the seperate tribes came in to contact with eachother, and became part of a growing world.
@lourak No, it is the nature of science to constantly try to improve or disprove theories and offer better ones. Because scientist don’t believe there is an absolute truth. If the same applied to religion, I would have no problem with it, because then it would truly be an instrument of good. Now it exist of an archaïc set of rules, that may have been noble or nessicary at the time of their conception. But simply should have no place in the world of today.
Part 2 – Secondly, shouldn’t we similarly view the scientific enterprise – where the majority of theories have been discarded in favor of one best theory? Should we conclude: “let us reject this theory of gravity, since all other theories have proven wrong.
Part 1 – This argument is flawed on its face. What is decisive, is not the fact that so many god’s have been consigned to the dust bin of history, and hence, we should so consign one more G-d – but, the fact of what all religions have historically shared in common – the claim for the existence of a transcendental realm that has explanatory power.
wrong…deists are not theists. deisim suggests there may have been a ‘god’ who started things off but doesn’t intervene anymore. theism suggests you know this god’s mind.
My fellow atheists, you are not alone.
@Melvin6566842
sorry made a mistake
@Brahmsfourth
He has balls as big as church bells.I think he is a bloody genius….AND he has real integrity and honesty……..unlike 90%%% of religious maggots i have met.
i am a Panentheism believer.
rockyfan21: and certain Deist’s imaginations is where it will remain. there is no discounting of a prime mover, but we don’t know that there is a special exception made for our species to go on living after we die (coincidently the only species we know of who are aware that they are going to do so). what we do know is we have this life for sure, and we it would be wise to make the best of it.
thank god for Christopher!!!!!!!! (no pun intended)
Although the measures of natural life and their complexities may have an explanation for the coming about of in a natural way, it isn’t as though he has robbed Deists of their argument overall.
Let him now address the measures of physical matter, the percentages of atoms and the smaller units of existence and give a natural explanation for those. Why is matter not 46% iron? What set these percentages?
The complexity argument does not fall with the theory of evolution.
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book The World As I See It that the harmony of natural law Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.*
Brahmsfourth = rentaquote
Brahms fifth for me …Hungarian Dance that is