Christopher Hitchens on Having Cancer

And the beatification process passes this test...

stop pretending that your faith is backed up by science. It isn't, that's why it REQUIRES FAITH, which is the willing belief in something without ANY PROOF, or RATIONAL BASIS.

Your beatification is not a scientific occurrence, it's not falsifiable, it's not real.
 
stop pretending that your faith is backed up by science. It isn't, that's why it REQUIRES FAITH, which is the willing belief in something without ANY PROOF, or RATIONAL BASIS.

Your beatification is not a scientific occurrence, it's not falsifiable, it's not real.
Eyewitness testimony isn't falsifiable?
 
Bottom line is, I try to be respectful to most people who have just passed on, such as remembering the finer points of Hitchens. The only people I outright cheered for when they died were OBL, some of the other AQ lieutenants, and Robert Byrd.
 
Christopher Hitchens and I have a lot in common on that front, when you separate out religion. We are both snobs, we engage in assholery when we are on a political tirade/crusade, we both agree(d) that Western Civilization is in danger and needs defending, and we both tended to support Bush's policy in the Mideast as it was ongoing (Hitchens took issue with Bush's methods and go-to men; while I evolved my thinking beyond neoconservative foreign policy to realpolitick Kissinger-style, whom Hitchens ironically hated).

Why are you a snob?
 
You gotta be fucking kidding me? By definition you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God.

You cannot prove the existence of any concept that is self-consciously presented in such a way as to escape rational inquiry. The purpose of doing so is to obfuscate the truth and confuse people into believing that your ignorance is truth. The arguments ignorant men use for the existence of God are much like the logical contortions of slimy lawyers, pure bullshit designed for no purpose other than to entrap moral people into evil ideas.
 
This may seem odd coming from one who was formerly named Voltaire, but Pascal's wager makes a lot of sense. Hitchens had everything to lose by rejecting God, whereas Christians have everything to gain. Some would argue the wager is useless due to the vast number of religions, but I believe a close examination of Christianity reveals that it is quite different from other religions. For one thing, it is supported by eye witnesses (e.g. of the resurrection). There is simply no comparison between the account of Jesus Christ and the tales of Valhalla.

It really doesn't make all that much sense. Had the worship of Ba'al been the norm at the time his wager would be for us all to follow that one. It isn't any more logical that this particular religion is the "right one"...

Hence the need for actual Faith. Not "logic".
 
Why are you a snob?

I consider it quintessential cosmopolitan living. Growing up as a youth in a cosmopolitan setting (such as coffee-sipping Seattle), you slowly have many of your absolutist tendencies stripped from you by way of education, experience, mellowing out, drugs, etc. Snobbery is among the last absolutist tendency that we can get away with, and its difficult to rebut snobbery in any of those ways I described (for example, you cannot compare mass-produced hard water to quality microbrewed beer, or vended flavoured coffee to a good Starbucks espresso). Being better than other people can thus be both qualified and quantified, and that's how we snobs choose to live our lives.
 
It really doesn't make all that much sense. Had the worship of Ba'al been the norm at the time his wager would be for us all to follow that one. It isn't any more logical that this particular religion is the "right one"...

Hence the need for actual Faith. Not "logic".

Again, I don't think that is a valid comparison. A close examination of Christianity reveals that it is quite unique as far as religions are concerned. Many ancient stories contained within the Bible have been validated by archeological evidence -- evidence which continues to mount. Vivid prophecies written a thousand years prior to the actual event (e.g. Isaiah 53) were fulfilled. Non-Christian historians, such as Josephus, wrote accounts of Jesus' miracles. Furthermore, whereas the tombs of all other religious founders and prophets inevitably became shrines, it is not so for Jesus Christ. Surely, had Jesus not risen, His tomb would have become a place of pilgrimage. But the tomb is empty.

There are many other reasons why I believe Christianity is much more plausible than any other religion. Of course, you're correct that it is a matter of faith, but surely reason can operate within the context of faith, as I demonstrated above. Faith is required to believe that Jesus rose from the grave, but this faith is supported by historical accounts.
 
Again, I don't think that is a valid comparison. A close examination of Christianity reveals that it is quite unique as far as religions are concerned. Many ancient stories contained within the Bible have been validated by archeological evidence -- evidence which continues to mount..

Debatable, and it wouldn't make Christinity preferable to Islam or Judaism. Many of the events in Homer's Iliad have be confirmed by architectural evidence, doesn't mean the Gods said to be involved actually existed.

Vivid prophecies written a thousand years prior to the actual event (e.g. Isaiah 53) were fulfilled.

The problem with prophecy is that it's pattern matching. Yes, if you spit out some vague crap I can probably align it to later events if I'm desperate, but all mystics try to pull this kind of crap. It's not very impressive.

Non-Christian historians, such as Josephus, wrote accounts of Jesus' miracles.

The passage of Josephus looks a lot like a forgery.

Furthermore, whereas the tombs of all other religious founders and prophets inevitably became shrines, it is not so for Jesus Christ. Surely, had Jesus not risen, His tomb would have become a place of pilgrimage. But the tomb is empty.

Really? You're going to use the fact that we can't even find enough evidence for him to point to where his tomb was as an argument for his existence? Very very sad. Unlike Muhammad, who clearly existed in historical space (pretty hard to miss someone who founds an empire), Jesus's character is semi-mythical. If he did exist, he was at best the founder of a small cult that only exploded much later. It would be easy to lose his tomb. Other religious figures who exist in more ancient periods when history was not well recorded, such as David, Moses, Buddha, and Mahavira, suffer from similar conditions.

There are many other reasons why I believe Christianity is much more plausible than any other religion.

"If someone were to put a proposition before men bidding them choose, after examination, the best customs in the world, each nation would certainly select its own." - Herodotus
True 2000 years ago, still true today.

Of course, you're correct that it is a matter of faith, but surely reason can operate within the context of faith, as I demonstrated above. Faith is required to believe that Jesus rose from the grave, but this faith is supported by historical accounts.

Debatable.
 
I don't see any love or understanding for your fellow man coming from you, your whole philosophy seems to be based on an eye for eye as espoused by the OT.
There is a time for war and a time for peace. We are currently in a time of war.

So tell me how Catholics 'shun the OT'.
 
Back
Top