Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig
by Doug TenNapelI had the opportunity to see Christopher Hitchens debate Dr. William Lane Craig on the topic “Does God Exist?” at BIOLA University. The gymnasium was packed with 3,000 people, most of whom were Christians but some non-believers made a showing. Without the home court advantage, you might think Hitchens would be the Lion cast into Daniel’s Den. Surely the reciprocal of the secular university would happen; he’d get pies thrown at him, and he would be regularly booed, shouted down and mocked. Hardly.
Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens is a kind of celebrity, even among Christians because he is an interesting character. If anything, he was warmly embraced by a crowd who generally disagreed with him even as he hurled the worst insults at God, which we consider the holiest, highest being imaginable. This is the demonstration of class and restraint I’ve noticed from a conservative Christian culture that has a much better record of tolerance than the liberal non-Christian culture.
While most of us are familiar with Christopher Hitchens, many people may not know of his opponent Dr. William Lane Craig. I simply call him, “The smartest living Christian.” Like Hitchens, Dr. Craig makes a good living at debate. Dr. Craig is a brilliant logician and eloquent advocate of the faith. He is an “evidentialist” in that he argues for the existence of God based on evidence not presupposition (which is another popular form used in debate).
I assumed Dr. Craig would win the argument and would show superior technical skills, but I didn’t know if he could beat Hitchens’ presence. In modernity, having the right arguments isn’t enough. More than ever, we are accustomed to disengaging our rational center to embrace an artful presentation. Every Republican should be woefully aware of this by now given the last election. Substance alone doesn’t cut it, so Dr. Craig’s greater challenge was to bring a presence to the room that might win over the heart, because I think he’s got a lock on the mind.
The event was moderated by radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who managed a quick introduction of Hitch’ and Craig but barely managed to exit the stage. He tripped on his way down, attempted a mid-air correction, contorting like a drunken baby deer having a seizure in a potato-sack. Just as his feet hit the ground he tripped again, never quite giving the audience the satisfaction of completely eating it, but Hugh is famous for having a huge dissatisfied audience. After 15 minutes of flailing on the stage he managed the near impossible task of finding his seat with his life in tact. (I’m kidding, of course. I consider Hugh a valued friend and someone I deeply respect and admire.)
The debate began with Dr. Craig’s opening arguments. He made a challenge to leave our bias at the door. Impossible, I know, but he claimed that the debate would be fought on philosophical arguments. He would rule out bad arguments, offer the historicity and logic of his good arguments, then challenge Hitchens to make a positive argument for his own atheism. This demonstrates Craig’s adherence to formal debate tactics. He doesn’t take his positions based on emotion or preference, he uses argument and reason and follows the evidence.
Dr. Craig’s evidence is presented in 5 different lines of argument:
1. The Cosmological Argument; Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. God is the best explanation for that cause.
2. The Teleological Argument; The fine-tuning of the universe is so improbable that law or chance aren’t adequate explanations. God is the best explanation.
3. The Moral Argument; If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Rape isn’t just culturally unacceptable, it’s actually wrong.
4. The Resurrection of Jesus; The vast majority of historians generally agree that the tomb was empty. Separately, the vast majority of historians generally agree that Jesus appeared to people post-mortem. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
5. The Immediate Experience of God; Belief that God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded in argument.
Christopher Hitchens opened with an argument that Dr. Craig had the obligation to prove God exists with some amount of certainty. The burden isn’t on the atheist in the debate to show God doesn’t exist. His position is simply that of a skeptic. Given the idea that God either does exist or does not exist, Hitch thinks doubt is the better position. He alluded that it is also the more humble position.
Hitch doesn’t claim knowledge that there is no God. He claims ignorance, though he avoids calling himself an agnostic. Because he doesn’t know and Dr. Craig claims to know that God exists, the disadvantage goes to the one who says, “I know.” He says that given the stakes are so extra-ordinary (ie judgment, Heaven and hell, dying for one’s faith, killing in the name of God) the evidence provided by Dr. Craig wasn’t extra-ordinary enough to prove a God exists.
The most common argument made by Hitchens was that the world contained so much cruelty and brutality for most living creatures across most of existence that a good God didn’t seem likely, and that if He did exist that He had a lot of bloodshed to answer for. He gave examples of the pre-Christ and even pre-Jewish people who died without ever knowing the one true God. That their lives were lost in ignorance and that only recently does God come on the scene to save some. Hitch returned to this line of reasoning so many times that I’d say it was his core reason for disbelieving God.
Hitch went back to how our belief that God should personally be so concerned with us that we should have the benefit of being born post-Christ to enjoy salvation was a form of solipsism. “It’s all about us.” he said, “Everything else was wasted, but at least we’re here.”
Throughout the rest of the debate, be it the rebuttal, the conclusion, the question/answer, Hitchens returns to this classic problem of suffering, and mocks believers for finding selfish meaning in the midst of evil; “You’re a worm but take heart, it’s all made for you.”
The debate was over two hours of complex arguments and rabbit trails, but it was Dr. Craig who refused to go off track from the argument at hand. Hitchens got a lot of laughs, even with his blunt jokes against God and Christians. Dr. Craig managed a good laugh by stating that the 10 steps necessary in the universe to produce evolution consummates a miracle. Hitchens’ smile of disbelief looking over his glasses at the audience was gold.
William Lane Craig
Hugh Hewitt concluded the event with a final question: “Why do people come out over the question of God’s existence?” Hitchens believed it was because theocratic threats around the world are getting more coverage and is on our minds. Dr. Craig said that it was because the fruit of Godless modernity is being rejected and people are looking for answers.
But in my opinion, though Dr. Craig won the argument (he was the only one who even presented a formal argument), Hitchens won the debate. It’s not the argument of the debaters, it’s the condition of the audience that wins the day. While few of Dr. Craig’s arguments are dispersed through culture, even religious culture, I’ve been raised on most of Hitchens’ arguments. Dr. Craig’s arguments are true and well-reasoned by difficult to comprehend on a first hearing. Hitchens’ arguments are what we’ll find spoken against God on prime time television, at the water-cooler, I’ve even heard some of them on Animal Planet. Culture generally makes Hitchens’ argument by default. And it’s easier to claim the skeptic’s nothing than affirm the something of God…even when I think the most robust argument is self evident to all of us…we’re here.
I think if there were atheists in the audience on the brink of salvation that Dr. Craig’s well-argued positions would find little purchase. Opposite that, the room of Christians would likely have a large segment of doubters, and the cultural arguments against God presented by Hitchens would likely change more minds in my opinion.
So are debates judged by the merit of the arguments or the embrace of the audience? In this all important subject, I think the effect on the audience is the preferred measurement. But the evening left little doubt to most of us that Hitchens did not make a case for atheism at all. He barely even acknowledged his own atheism which was oddly refreshing. It reminds me of G. K. Chesterton who said, “Somehow one can never manage to be an atheist.”
What’s more important is that the debate took place at all. The modern idea that discussions about God (especially for God) should be removed from the public square, education or even casual conversation is the worst position of all. It is good for these atheists and Christians to make a case for what is perhaps the most important question any of us will consider.
Does God exist?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
212 Comments
Excellently articulated. Thanks for taking the time to post this. I always find myself angered by much of what Hithcens says, yet simultaneously thankful that he doggedly persists. He is nothing if not willing to engage, and for that he is deserving of respect. I remember a great episode of uncommon knowledge in which he debates William F Buckley. What an immensely likable and intelligent duo.
http://thedailyswitch.wordpress.com/
Excellently articulated. Thanks for taking the time to post this. I always find myself angered by much of what Hithcens says, yet simultaneously thankful that he doggedly persists. He is nothing if not willing to engage, and for that he is deserving of respect. I remember a great episode of 'uncommon knowledge' in which he debates William F Buckley. What an immensely likable and intelligent duo.
http://thedailyswitch.wordpress.com/
To the living – that's us, mostly – what's the functional difference between "culturally unacceptable" and "wrong?"
That a crime like rape is so stomach-churningly reprehensible as to be inconceivable to any but the most screwed up mind doesn't seem like a concept that should be either strengthened or weakened by a deity agreeing that it's screwed up. The act is screwed up on its own merits and should be treated as such. Ditto murder, adultery, theft, etcetera.
Even though it wasn't an emphasis in your piece, it's nice to see someone else knows the difference between an evidentialist and a presuppositionalist
(I'm a presuppositionalist, for the record, but think Craig is still generally quite useful for Christian apologetics).
I would have to disagree with #4 from Dr. Craig's arguments. Occam's Razor says that if we saw Him alive, he didn't die. Sans an autopsy by a qualified ME, I'd have to either resort to faith or agree with Occam. However, if God exists, He exists beyond the realm of Hitchen's queaziness with His actions or lack thereof. He passeth understanding. Oddly, LSD "cured" me of my agnosticism many years ago. Dr. Craig's 5th argument is the one that convinced me.
I'm sure Craig's argument included the fact that most scholars also believe Jesus was killed on the cross. For most secular historians, the givens are: "1) Jesus was killed. 2) The tomb was empty. 3) People CLAIMED to have seen Him walking around after His death." Thus, they focus on the third point and try to discredit the claim, usually by pointing to Occam, in the form of "It's more likely that people lied than that they actually saw Jesus alive after His death." There are arguments against those historians too, but as I said in another comment I'm a presuppositionalist partly because of the limits of evidentialism in answer the critics above. I still think Craig's arguments work as SUPPORTING arguments, but in order to get to the philosophical meat of the issue, you have to deal with the presuppositions involved.
Interesting. I wonder how the Nazis felt about what they were doing in a moral sense?
Craig is indeed formidable. Hitchens has the pulse of the culture and the soundbyte. He understands the stupidity of those who worship pop culture, he disdains them, and he knows what to say and how to manipulate them. Pithy Funny Zingers have more value now that ideas. I would love to have been at that debate. Dinesh Dsouza has done very well debating Hitchens too. There is a rising militant secularism occurring that denies freedom. I believe religious freedom is the foundation of all freedoms.
Occam's Razor is to make as few assumptions as possible to explain something. Basically, once you find the answer, stop looking. Witnesses (Roman soldiers who were very familiar with what dead people looked like, people who removed the body from the cross, people who wrapped and anointed –embalmed– his body in preparation for burial) saw Jesus die or that he was dead.
I held my father's hand as he died last year. I knew it at that moment and I'm not a qualified medical expert. I didn't need an autopsy to tell me dad was dead.
Wether or not someone believes me 2000 years from now does not change taht fact.
Occam's Razor is to make as few assumptions as possible to explain something. Basically, once you find the answer, stop looking. Witnesses (Roman soldiers who were very familiar with what dead people looked like, people who removed the body from the cross, people who wrapped and anointed –embalmed– his body in preparation for burial) saw Jesus die or that he was dead.
I held my father's hand as he died last year. I knew it at that moment and I'm not a qualified medical expert. I didn't need an autopsy to tell me dad was dead.
Wether or not someone believes me 2000 years from now does not change that fact.
Very good post to inform those of us who were not there or have not yet listened. Thank you.
I agree with your assessment of the spirit of the age: the zeitgeist of debate. The lasting impression of the presentation is far more important than the rationality of the arguments. This betrays the fact that ours is not a rational age. It is ironic that, so often, atheists accuse Christians (or theists) of being irrational. But the best atheist debater of the day relies more on rhetoric and impression–and dodges the rational arguments–in order to communicate his position.
Atheism's greatest strength is its first impression.
My firm conviction is that Christianity is the last, best hope for Reason.
I appreciate Dr. Craig more than I can say, but I do believe the presuppositional approach is more appropriate for the day we're living in.
Anyway,
Dr. Alvin Plantinga's work is helpful.
So is Cornelius Van Til's.
So is Ravi Zacharias'.
So is Ronald Nash's.
J.P. Moreland
Tim Keller
CS Lewis
On and on…
I understand that the Nazis thought they were improving mankind, and especially their own population and culture, by eliminating inferior races / people. Mentally and physically disabled people, or "useless bread gobblers," were disposed of quickly. Other races and groups as well were deemed a danger to their vision of a better society. Jews were murdered for this reason as well as being a target to focus their hate and resentment (past injustices, failures, etc.) on. So morally, they thought they were doing something alright. They didn't advertise – but they did keep meticulous records. You don't keep records of deeds you believe are wrong.
the rape issue is interesting. If you pay close attention you will find the Left really does not have a fundamental problem with the act; indeed they show tolerance towards it if it is sodomy, and their stunning silence on the practice of it in Islamic societies is especially revealing. It is only when it is considered a 'power' issue, namely white males do they protest. So relative morality is indeed codified here
do not forget either, the Roman centurion Longines and 'the spear of destiny'- when he put Christ out of His misery the blood and water that poured from the wound restored his sight and he became a Christian convert, and a messianic one as well… there is empirical evidence of this throughout history, not to mention every dictator in history has tried to acquire said item.
I would have loved to have been at that debate. Thanks for sharing. I find it interesting that you seemed to disparage modernity's propsensity of "disengaging our rational center to embrace an artful presentation," but then went on to do just that yourself.
Christopher Hitchins is a brilliant and eloquent mind and is always interesting. He reflects the Euro-atheist movement which is rooted in Protestant morays; they accept the rules even if not the evidence of the rule makers… unfortunately, like most atheists he is ugly and intolerant about the issue and is the only issue where he is arbitrary and inflexible.
Dr Craig on the other hand, uses cool logic to advance his agenda and once again, like most educated Christians is comfortable in his faith and does not find debate threatening. Good, provocative post- bet the real event was a gas…
I do believe God exists. But that doesn't mean I think the Bible is the word of God.
Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that the Bible is basically all hearsay. I mean, think about it. If someone told you they saw God or spoke to God, it's not gospel or revealation. It's just one guy's word that it happened. And mental hospitals are full of people that claim to play gin rummy with God.
From a theological standpoint I have a hard time with organized religion because it's all based upon hearsay. It's been twisted and changed and bent to fit the agenda of the day. I question anyone that says they know what God's plan is.
But no matter how hard an aetheist tries to convince me there is no God, they can't adequately answer how we all got here. The only logical explanation is God, and I keep winding up there.
This is an excellent point. An aetheist is free to do whatever he feels like doing because there is no threat of eternal damnation. There is no moral center driven by God, so what's the point in behaving while here on earth if at the end of your life there's just nothing.
On the point made earlier; belief in God is in no way tied to the practice of organized relgion, but it can be.. Ditto the relationship between moral code and religious rules of the road.
Good point. But it is interesting to note that as Allied forced advanced, the SS was quick to try and destroy the evidence and run like cowards. Even these bastards had a moral sense but accepted the cultural standard when it prevailed.
> It's just one guy's word that it happened.
That's exactly why Luke (the guy who wrote a gospel and Acts) was so careful. So he researched carefully, working with whatever tools a historian had at his disposal: chasing down rumors, interviewing witnesses, putting together a timeline.
Paine (as well as Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism) was an atheist; it's just one guy's word that it didn't happen.
But this is what liberals of the foaming-at-the-mouth variety thrive on. Bill Maher is their poster boy. Just watch an episode when he has someone that is there to debate\\discuss an issue. The "panel" is loaded with people that drink Maher's bath water, the audience is so intellectually stunted and screeches everytime Maher belches out an insult, and the whole atmosphere is one of combat, not discussion.
I wrote a play by play of the debate and posted it on my blog. It describes every point made during the debate on either side, but not the Q&A period.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/the...
More summaries and comments from peope who attended are linked here:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/aud...
Point taken, but it's still just hearsay. Luke never actually witnessed the resurection or anything else he chronicled. So it's not revealation, it's the word of a guy who knows a guy who might have seen something according to his cousin twice removed.
I don't begrudge anyone their faith, I just take the Bible with a grain of salt.
And yes, Paine was an aetheist (and a complete failure in everything he did), but he does raise a valid point. Even if your best friend came to you and said he saw God or God spoke to him, would you believe him?
Well, this is an entertainment piece, not a debate. I didn't think it would be good form to debate on the debate when it's more appropriate to do that here in the comments section.
Hitchens is probably my favorite atheist. Most of that is due to the fact that he has such a strong sense of morality and shows such powerful indignation that the God of the Bible could be in favor of the things written there.
Ironically, it is this moral outrage that undermines his final point. If humans are nothing but mere animals then there is no moral outrage to be had. When a male lion takes over a pride, he may kill all the cubs that are not his own. If that is a morally wrong act, then we would have a duty to stop our fellow mammals from executing this horrible sin.
If we are merely animals, then there is no right or wrong and there is no sin. We cannot condemn a man for killing his wife's lover any more than we can blame a cat for torturing it's prey. They are both actions driven by the impulses of biological evolution. The fact that we see the actions of animals as amoral but the actions of humans as moral shows that we expect ourselves to rise above out biology. Without a God, there is nothing to rise toward.
But even more than that, trying to rise above out biology would be to counteract our evolutionary nature. If evolution produced our system of morality (which Hitchens has claimed) then it would be the greatest sin of all to act counter to our biological impulses because our impulses are geared toward survival. And yet the greatest sins are when we do exactly the opposite and act on our biological impulses while disregarding common morality.
The thought is incomplete, but I find it curious
I have a Bachelor Degree in Electronics. Thinking scientifically, I see design and planning when I look at the world. For example, I inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. A tree inhales carbon dioxide and exhales oxygen. There is planning and deisign.
Could that have happened by chance? Highly unlikely. Just put some flour, milk, eggs, etc. on the table and see how long is required to come back and find a cake there.
Only God could have done it.
Agreed, but there are fanatics that take this to the extreme on both sides of the discussion.
Know how you can tell when someone is a fanatic?
A fanatics' belief system is usually based on a shaky foundation. When someone begins to chip away at that shaky foundation with logic, reason, and fact a normal person will accept that perhaps they should rethink what they believe. The fanatic will defend their position with all the ferocity and venom they can muster even as the shaky foundation of their belief system crumbles around them.
They would rather die or kill than be proven wrong.
What? The left is strongly against such things. Who do you think is constantly pushing to get the Saudis to shape up? The idealistic left. It's just not pragmatic for us because we need their alliance.
What a silly comment you make.
Indeed, American Christians have no problem with murder of innocent people of a different color. Like Nazis before them, they allow their morals to be dictated to them by those in power, namely religious and political authorities.
LSD can also make people believe they can fly. Doesn't make it so. LSD creates a euphoric effect on people, but it's not real.
American Christians have no problem with murder of innocent people of a different color. Like Nazis before them, they allow their morals to be dictated to them by those in power, namely religious and political authorities.
Excellent review and essay. I admire Hitchens as a free-speech hero and believe his work in taking on the Left during the early days of the Iraq war made a national difference. But I think this atheist project has not been flattering to him. I keep seeing flashes — for longer durations each time — of a real, sour ordinariness. And I keep hearing in my mind that line by Orwell… "most atheists I know don't so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike him."
What a load of crap. A) "Sodomy" isn't rape, it is a concept invented by religion. B) The only silence you hear on rape is in your own mind.
I'm gonna get ripped for this, but…
It seems like Hitchins' argument against the existence of God is the classic road block to the playground Ranking game, "Yeah, so?"
To presuppose that each believer's 'evidence' for God isn't highly subjective is wrong. We are all individuals and God speaks to us in ways that each of us, as God's children, would understand. Does that mean that you would understand the things that I point to in my life to confirm God's existence for me? Maybe, but probably not. Scientists, believers and non-believers, can look at the same evidence and see the opposite things. For one, it confirms his belief. For the other, it confirms his disbelief. Is it a miracle, or just a highly improbable scientifically explained phenomenon?
God expects us to come to Him on His terms, not ours. The way we do that is through study, experimentation (try out what you learn), two decidedly scientific concepts, and prayer, one decidedly un-scientific concept. In the end, it is our choice to see the Star of Bethlehem, or just a comet (or whatever the latest theory is).
A truly interesting and thoughtful remark. Thanks.
Of course it is in our nature to deny something when no evidence exists supporting it. It's called logic and reason.
This is exactly the conclusion I keep coming to.
Thanks for the analogy, I'll be using that the next time someone pulls the aetheist routine on me.
Of course every religion/group thinks they have the market cornered on Truth, and are willing to die for it, i.e., suicide bombers who sincerely believe they are going to get their virgins when they blow up a school bus full of kids, etc. This is the argument my son, who was raised as a Christian is now using on me. He has decided he no longer believes in God. I'm not so arrogant as to assume that I have all the answers and I do wonder and always have? What happened to the souls of those who died before Jesus came on the scene: The Egyptians who believed in Ra, the Jews born before Christ? The pagans, the Aztecs and Mayans? I would love for someone to give me an answer on that. Seriously. I've never heard that addressed. I asked my pastor, and he went back only to Abraham's time. Some in my church would consider it heresy that I even ask the question. I must say this, even though I be branded a moron. It does all come down to faith, regardless of intelligent argument. I'm always reminded of how I know Jesus exists and is risen, when I sing "He Lives" on Easter Sunday. When we sing the chorus of : "He lives within my heart", I know it's true. I feel the presence of Jesus and I know that I am on the right side. That puts me right on par with the Muslim and the non-believers, and the fact that I believe with all my heart IN Jesus, and they believe with all their heart in what they may genuinely feel. Could there be one God and many ways to get to him – Jesus being ours? I would love to hear someone's thoughts on this.
The age old debate about the word of God or the word of man… it does present problems for not only empiricists but the faithful as well. We have learned that there are no atheists in the foxhole; at crunch time you either accept Him or reject Him. Either way you believe. Suffice to say as far as organized religion goes
God has said one "cannot know the unknowable"… ultimately we are good with that.
Write your comment here…
I suggest that Mr TenNaple invest in a good dictionary. Mr Hitchens may have alluded but did not elude that it is also the more humble position. Intact is one word not two.
I choose to accept Him….
But:
"God has said one "cannot know the unknowable"… "
How do we know God actually said this? Separating faith from fact has been my dilema. I believe in God, but I also believe in the ability of man to abuse people's faith in Him. So when anyone says things like "God has said one "cannot know the unknowable"… " . I understand the thought behind it but I question the motive.
In the end, I am good with it….
"There is a rising militant secularism occurring that denies freedom. I believe religious freedom is the foundation of all freedoms."
I can't tell if that's sarcasm. Especially the idea of secular anything denying freedom. That really sounds like sarcasm, because it's a ridiculous idea. Now religion denying freedom, there's a ton of that to find.
I think the right wing really needs to entertain some critical thought about questioning religion instead of seeing all skepticism on religion to be some kind of threat to morals and family or whatever, like atheists are going to enslave humanity and make everyone not believe in god or whatever. It only makes the right look like more of a joke, when they're supposed to be "the rational ones." It's the same crap you hear from the left about guns being evil and we need to get rid of guns.
TSJ,
here's where I think atheists get a pass. If an atheist commits evil, he isn't claiming an objective moral good exists (at least a consistent atheist wouldn't) so evil in the name of atheism doesn't count against atheism. If we make a positive claim that a true good God exists then it puts a greater burden on us to make sense of the evil our God allows.
What is a greater argument is why the atheist should feel any sadness in violence created in the name of religion OR atheism. He has to make a Naturalistic case for why I feel sadness over a rape in China.
Thanks steven. Too bad my last name isn't in the dictionary so you could get it right.
I'll let the editors know about those spelling errors…but I'm not the best English student to say the least.
"He gave examples of the pre-Christ and even pre-Jewish people who died without ever knowing the one true God. That their lives were lost in ignorance and that only recently does God come on the scene to save some."
That sounds like a pretty good point actually. Just what was god up to way back then? I mean before Adam and Eve, because we now know there were people before then.
If it is true that Jesus is the only way to heaven, is it possible that all of the other religions throughout time are only apostasies from one true religion? Is it possible that even ancient peoples knew who Jesus Christ was and what his mission was?
Murder? of whom? the Nazis are, remember on the Left… American Christians (different from others?) believe in freedom, freedom of the soul to pursue their individual destinies.
And will fight to defend them, not 'murder' you fool…
Yes, I know! John 14: 6 – "I am the way the truth, the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me". So what do I tell my son, whose intellectual reasoning is telling him it doesn't all make sense and doesn't have the faith to overcome that?
Please elaborate on your theory. I find it very interesting.
[...] Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig – by Doug TenNapel [...]
got us there… ultimately this is all about one thing- faith. And that really is the key, don't you think? If we knew absolutely then you wouldn't have to believe, there would be no human mystery. We would not try to achieve the unachievable, so to speak…
Is that so…care to explain how?
Stalin and Hitler both wanted to establish societies where the state is the religion. This came from the French Revolution where the goal was to push the church to the margins of society and allow the state to provide for the people's needs. We can all see how well that works out. So feel free to debunk my argument but I've got a feeling I won't be hearing from you again.
Logic and reason can only take you so far. Even most scientists agree that logic and reason don't provide answers to everything. But I'm guessing you cite them as an excuse not to question anything and to avoid any actual thought.
Right, I forgot how the liberal Nazis supported civil rights, gay marriage, and healthcare for the disabled.
I don't agree with Hitchens, but I do find him very interesting. I saw a clip recently of Bill Maher's show where, at least, HItchens excoriated the rapper, Mos Def, (I guess that's his name) who was unsure whether the Taliban was evil or not. It was an enjoyable exchange.
The Nazis were not a leftist ideology. Let me guess: you think that because they had "socialist" in the name of their party? If this is the level of logical processing you are capable of, I can see why you'd make the outrageous remark that people on the left have no qualms with rape. Nearly all of Hitler's policies and beliefs were extremist right views, not the other way around. Educate yourself, please. We have enough ignorance in the world.
Pushing the House of Saud? You must be kidding. Who on the right is "pushing the House of Saud?" Maybe the Christian Cowboy, George W. Bush? Nope, he merely held hands with them and allowed them to bail him out when his business "skills" failed him? Your argument is ridiculous and your reasoning is nonexistent. No one, on the right or left, approves or rape in any society. Stop being an idiot and insisting otherwise.
You cant be allowed to actually pretend that those 5 arguments are actually good.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause – then what is God's cause? God gets a pass I guess. And it is also not a given that the universe has a beginning. The universe as we know it has a beginning (the big bang), but many scientists believe this was just like a bubble popping at the top of a glass of champagne. One of many. The universe may be eternal. Its a terrible argument, always has been.
3) But where does God get his morals? If God picks the best morals that he wants, then these morals exist outside of God. If the morals are coming straight from God, then its just a situation of 'might makes right'. Just because he's the universal bully, he gets to make his own rules. And thats scary considering how much blood is on his hands. I dont care if God thinks homosexuality is immoral. Its not. I think a tsunami killing hundreds of thousands of people is immoral, if you have the power to stop it. But regardless – morality IS subjective. Get over it. Its scary. But if you only act morally because you are scared of God or because you want to get to heaven, thats not true morality. Thats fear and reward-seeking.
4) This is just not true.
5) How about the non-existence experience of God. None of you, I am sure, have ever experienced God by any of the five senses. Have you touched God, smelled him, tasted him, heard him or felt him? No matter what kind of figurative language you try to use, you havent.
They are both good at what they do. But Craig has got nothing new than the same old junk
Allow me to explain. The concept of treating someone well is a condition neccessary to exist in society. The "eternal damnation" an aetheist would suffer is being known as a complete A-hole to your peers, neighbors, family. Being an outcast or parriah is a very real tangible outcome. So we are not accountable only to ourselves, unless we are totally antisocial. Devoutly religious leaders throughout history have also managed a pretty impressive body count. God does not tell us that purposefully stepping on an anthill is wrong, but some of us KNOW it is.
If they were so religious, how come they routinely killed religious people and destroyed churches?
you obviously know nothing; if you cannot accept the fact that NATIONAL SOCIALISM is leftist ideology go back to the 3rd grade that you failed. You are so wrong as to defy credibility, but you won't be the first communsit sympathizer we have encountered who makes hideously wrong assertions. Hitler right wing- what a moron…
I don't understand why God has to answer for man's cruelty and bloodshed. How does Hitchens come to that conclusion? If there is a God, we are morally responsible for inhumanity to our fellow man. If there's not a God, how does he conclude that cruelty and bloodshed are immoral? On what grounds? Where does he get this "justice" framework of thinking in the first place? I say, he gets it from the imago Dei resident in himself, deny it though he will.
That's probably the best I've ever heard it put to me.
Well said…..
I think you've got it wrong. It's his faith that tells him it doesn't make sense and his intellectual reasoning that can't overcome the strength of a solid cultural dogma. It's the atheist that says we can't argue with one's faith, but they forget that it also applies to the faith that is atheism. You'll need to get around his faith with something besides intellectual reasoning. Love and kindness works on some level.
And if you raised him as a Christian he'll likely come back anyways. All youth (myself included) have to test the strength of their own world view by putting it to the ultimate test.
There's also prayer. God convicts his hear far more than your arguments.
if you can't argue the points change the subject. Those topics are pushed by The Left so they can marginalize everyone by collecting all of life's losers (you know who they are very well) and shifting power from those who are healthy and normal and achievers for their own personal power; they throw the losers overboard when it suits their fancy. The life of denial you people live is amazing; holding your breath until you turn blue will not make it better… we are generally an agreeable sort but doctrinaire facists (facism is also on the left) hacks us off no end…
So, let me get this straight: Craig was clearly the more rational and logical, but Hitchens won the debate because of his ability to hold the crowd. This is like saying, "The Anaheim Ducks won the game 4-1, but Chicago stole the show with their bruising checks and physical prowess."
I don't know about you, but I'd take the reasonable over the showy any day. Hitchens is notorious for not making a case for atheism, but for acting like a jackass.
ah the cake analogy. aka 'the god of gaps'. what a joke, if this sort of reasoning appeals to you there is no point in arguing you need to read ANY modern philosophy or logic based book.
things happened to create our world, looking at the chance after the fact is worthless. after all we could exist as completely different beings right now if only for a few minor changes in the evolution process. these differences you would still argue for 'perfection'. seems you have all sides covered, how convenient for you.
fact is most of our planet is uninhabitable, people are born every day with defects, and many animals you have never even seen exist only to show that evolutionary process has (and is) happened. if you don't get this it is because your science classes and philosophy classes failed you–if you took them at all, NOT that god exists.
Thank you for that epic exercise in missing the point. Of course they don't, I was responding to antifascist's response. I made an observation that most people use the terms logic and reason to dismiss arguments rather than engage them.
I would add that left-wing nutbag poster boy Sean Penn loves to pretend that he's a champion of gay rights…..and then hangs out in Iran with the mulahs that hang gay people for being gay.
But you're beating your head against the wall trying to get anyone on the left to condemn Penn or anything any left wing extremist does.
Good post Hank. Of course now you know I agree with you. LOL Given the falible nature of man it is hard to imagine that the Bible is accurate. The ideas that it conveys is the important part. And yes anyone today who says God spoke to him and told him to write a new Bible chapter would be ridiculed or put in the looney bin. As for how we got here. Is it more whacky to believe that we arrived here through evolution, admitting that we don't have all the peices to the puzzle. Or that we were created from dust by an omnipotent being who we can't adequately answer how He got here.
[...] the whole thing here at Big Hollywood. You do not have to [...]
"1. Then what is God's cause?"
You didn't read the question carefully, "Whatever begins to exist." God didn't begin to exist. The universe did. If the universe didn't have a beginning then it has an eternal past. If it has an eternal past then an eternity would have to happen before we got to this moment…meaning we'd never get here.
When you say "many scientists" you're not talking about the vast majority. A handful believe the universe didn't have a beginning, and it's usually to avoid what the conclusion implies…God.
"3. But where does God get his morals?"
He doesn't pick morals he wants, so your premise fails. You didn't demonstrate that values are subjective because you claim it just IS. You can call God the universal bully, but that doesn't address that morals must come from a moral Giver. You saying that homosexuality is acceptable or even that killer tsunamis are immoral defy your own position that there are not transcendent moral truths. You're saying they're moral to you, so you actually lose your ability to project them onto another moral agent. Even if that moral agent is God, me or Dick Cheney.
Paine wasn't an atheist, he spoke out against religion sure, but most believe he, like thomas jefferson (and perhaps james madison) was a deist. being a deist as they were, living in a heavily crazy theist world many can come away with the belief that they were atheists. they were about as close to what an atheist was in those times.
you guys should really read 'Age of Reason' :
"The opinions I have advanced . . . are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me God."
dcase put it best I think
I distrust anything that man has had a hand in, especially when it's something as powerful as religion.
BUT
There has to be some faith that God knows what he's doing. Evolution or creation. I don't have that answer, but everytime I try to work this out in my own mind, I always come back to how did it all start??? Just a couple random rocks colliding in space? Where did the rocks come from? And on and on….
I always wind up back to God.
Right back at ya brother (or sister).
Those few that come here to spew that venom are not interested in debate or discussion or the idea that they may learn or teach something. They come here looking for a fight.
Best to just ignore them and let their drivel whither on the vine.
Thank you. I do try to use love and kindness. Also prayer. I also raised him to question authority, to use his own brain, and not blindly follow the crowd, so I also appreciate and admire him for thinking and pushing the envelope on "just living and believing a certain way, because that's what your parents did". I'm very proud of him, and my daughter. They're good human beings. That said, I refer to your comment about finding God through personal faith and personal experience as being the least convincing line of argument to you. I can see that, because I know what I know and I know what I feel, and I know there is a difference in my life and it is profound and supernatural. I can also see the point of view of people who say "she's a nut", or a schizo, or hearing voices in her head and needs to be picked up by the men in white coats. Ah well, as the Bible says, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. As someone else pointed out – if we knew all the answers to these things – there would be no need for faith. Best to you as we all try to find our way.
Replace the word "chance" in any given atheist argument with the word "God" you'd think you were talking to a holy roller.
As reprehensible as rape is, it poses an interesting challenge to people that believe only in evolution with no allowance for a supreme being. What evolutionary mechanism could possibly account for the human view of forced sex. Many species other than us procreate quite successfully using methods that can only be described as involuntary if not outright violent, forced intercourse. If evolution didn't impart a revulsion to such behavior in racoons, why would it have magically evolved in humans?
You might want to get this person what his\\her definition of "logic and reason" is…..
I'd be willing to bet it's whatever fits their dim view
There was an entire post on the lefty feminist blog Feministing in their community about how they needed to stop demonizing rapists. What was even more shocking was the volume of commentary underneath agreeing with her.
replace 'god' with 'crack corn' in any apologetics argument and you'd think you are taking to a crazy person. either way replacing words from peoples original arguments in absurd, and hardly proves ANY point. other then you can change an arguments intent when changing exactly what the person said.
"We" gave our reasoning? Poor thing. Are you hearing voices now, too? Look, rape is an act that is reprehensible and anyone trying to make it a left or right issue is an idiot…or worse. In this short exchange with you, I've determined that you are probably the latter. Now you say no one is pushing the Saudis do anything, yet before it was no one on the left. Well, which is it? The West's relationship with Islam, particularly radical Islam is a difficult one, no doubt. But people like you want to pretend is a black and white issue, which does no one any good – unless of course "bomb 'em back to the stone age" is a default for you.
Well, it doesn't make much sense that God wouldn't have a plan, a way to get back to Him, from the very beginning. Jesus makes claim that He is the only way, then wouldn't he have revealed himself to all people throughout human history? Truth speaks to the human soul, but it also true that humankind has a way of changing things to suit their point of view. All the prophets of the Old Testament fought against it with their people. Paul was the most prominent of the apostles of the New Testament to do this.
Isn't it possible religions, even the ones that we perceive as wildly different from one another have a foundation in one true God? If God created everything, He must have more than one pervue. A God of humankind, a God of nature, a creator. If people have a hard time accepting certain doctrine, we have evidence that they change things to fit more conveniently into their world-view.
Leftist have no problems with the racial culling program known as abortion. Oh, yes. It was pushed heavily to keep those "darkies" from growing in population. The Left also hates Zionism (see Jews) and anyone who supports the idea of a Israeli state. The Left pushes the idea of physical purity and using natal methods to clean up the race. The Left loves people of color as long as they vote accordingly and stay in their own neighborhoods, i.e., ghettos.
Hitler seized control of private enterprises, wowed Europe with his oratorical skills and was for a new hope and change for the German people.
I think the point many people here commenting are missing is that you can't apply human-limited intelligence and logic to something as powerful as God. As an All-powerful, All-seeing, omnipresent being I would think that God has a better idea of how things should work out than you do. Just because you can't explain it or fathom why something does or doesn't happen in a positive or negative way doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. It just means that you don't know Gods reasons, and since he is God (which I should point out means he is still far far far far far far far greater than any man) only his reasons really matter.
Because he is a loving God and a Just God then it could only mean that anything that God allows to happen has to have some positive or good reason. Do remember though, God does not commit acts of Evil. Only people can actually make evil manifest itself by their immoral/evil actions.
Luke likely knew most of the disciples. He likely also knew Jesus' mother, Miryam.
If my best friend came to me as said he saw God or God spoke to him, would I believe him? It would depend on what effect it had on the rest of his life. If I, like Luke, knew of a group of men who, according to themselves and others who knew them, had been average working-class joes who, with the exception of a couple of pairs of relatives, hadn't known each other, and, after coming in contact with Jesus, had left their homes and families, traveled around with Jesus, witnessed his arrest, knew of his death (only John witnessed the crucifixion up close), and then all of them claimed to have encountered the risen Jesus, I would look at the effect that such an encounter and event would have on them. That all the disciples traveled the known world preaching Jesus' resurrection was well preserved by the various communities they founded. That 10 of the 11 disciples who witnessed the risen Jesus were all arrested, tortured, and put to various painful and public deaths (John lived to old age) for preaching the risen Christ, without any of them recanting their testimony that they had witnessed the risen Christ, is not in dispute either. To claim that a person was willing to endure torture and death for proclaiming to have witnessed an event that they knew had never happened is not credible. To claim that 10 out of 10 people (John was not put to death) who proclaimed to have witnessed an event that they knew had never happened and were willing to endure torture and death without recanting is to propose a psychological miracle that requires a total abandonment of reason, human experience, and common sense.
So, if I, like Luke, had encountered the above, I would believe them. Knowing the claims these disciples of Jesus made about who He was, and what the purpose of his death and resurrection was, and seeing the effect on the lives of the disciples, I would find it monumentally difficult not to.
Sea lions force sex at times on their females often killing them in the process. Thanks for reminding me.
As for Hitchens and athiests, I am an athiest for the one reason being man's cruelty to animals. Inhumanity to other men seems reasonable while inhumanity to an innocent creature trying to get by mainly on instinct is distinctly ungodly. By the same token, I identify with Christians much more than with the rank and file athiest who happens to make the news. Christian traditions formed the basis for nearly everything that makes this country good and remarkable. After and enforced six credit hours of New Testament theology taught by a Sister of Mercy, I also came away with a deep admiration and respect for the Bible. Reading the bible, the words, the symbolism, the events, makes one proud to be human. There are many fantastically brilliant theology scholars from every Christian sect but especially the Catholic. They need to make their case in the form of biblical analysis in front of the mainstream press. I'm tired of hearing only lopsided stories of crazed creationists. Wisdom in the Bible is deep and largely unexplored by the last two generations.
Oops, forgot the link: http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html
Not necessarily. Especially when the point of the atheist argument is to disprove the "invisible sky fairy", "flying spaghetti monster," or just that ancient superstition known as god and they themselves rely upon one word to explain everything. That is chance. Chance explains the world we live in.
Child: "Why does the giraffe have so a long neck?"
Atheist: "Well, because of evolutionary chance."
Why is that any different than using the idea of god as a catch all? The concept of chance is the new god it seems. Sorry, just using "chance" doesn't prove anything either. Especially when laws of probability aren't on your side.
Part of what you say is true. Eugenics was a major focus of the original Planned Parenthood, started by Margaret Sanger with a big assist from one Prescott Bush. Of course, abortion today has nothing to do with eugenics. No one is compelling women of any color to have abortions, but many people on the left and right do think that it is a woman's right to choose.
Their are jews who hate Zionism; that is a complicated issue that I'll leave alone for now.
The left pushes ideas of physical purity? This is a new one to me, please share details on this fantasy.
Ghettoization as a leftist principle? Fascinating. Where did you learn that? So I guess industry and local economic expansion patterns are leftist principles? I never knew that. Tell me more.
I'll tell you one thing: it sure is fun to come in here and hear all the wing-bats spout off their theories on how leftists are nazis and rapists and captains of industry. And we wonder why we are so polarized as a nation. LOL.
Hey Hank.
I had an intense conversation with my pastor recently (I was expressing doubts). What fascinated me was that he acknowledged some inaccuracies that I pointed out to him, but expressed that he could see God in it. This wasn't and airy-fairy new age church but what you might call Fundamentalist. I was impressed that this highly educated man was able to reconcile the question for himself.
If you'll endulge me while I ramble, one sermon was on the nature of science and religion. He pointed out that in Genesis, the heavens was called the "firmament" reflecting the belief that the stars were fixed lights in the dome of the sky. He said that Christians shouldn't try to re-interpret that to fit our current understanding but accept it as a poetic illustration of creation to the culture of the time.
So as dcase says, it does come down to faith.
Believe me, I understand and relate to where you are coming from.
Evolution is a strong theory, but it has problems. For example, micro organisms are as efficient with their DNA as they can be. They only pick up new genes when they have to. They'll pick up the genes to resist an anti-biotic say, but then, as soon as they don't need that gene, they'll shed it. In multi-cellular organisms, we're packed with so-called junk DNA, we carry way more than we'll ever need. Somewhere, you and I have the genes for traits like gills and a tail. Evidence for our evolution, yes, but no micro-organisms carry these genes. So, if we evolved from unicellular organisms into multi-cellular organisms and on up, at what point did the physiology of the cell make that shift from shedding unnecessary DNA to keeping it? How did that happen? It is one of the un-answered questions. However, people are so stuck on and invested in evolution as is that they won't allow questioning it seems. Why? It's possible the answer is entirely evolutionary.
I learned about Craig well after my beliefs and reasons for them solidified within me. And my reasons for knowing that God exists are many, but the ones that offer proof for me are some of these;
Order of Creation: Compare current science's order of creation/evolution with that of the Genesis account. A nearly exact match. How is this knowlegde known to someone from 5 millenia past?
Shape of the Earth: Aristophenes and Pythagoras were 2 ancient Greeks who claimed the Earth to be spherical. One even calculated the size to be around 25,000 miles in dia. Only 2,000 miles off. But the Prophet Isaiah wrote that the Earth was round centuries before that. Again where'd he get this correct pre-observabl info?
Fulfilled Prophesy: God told Abraham that (1) he would be the father of many nations, & (2) his decendants would be as numerous as the stars. 5,000 years later, both are true. God told the Israelites that their kingdom would be destroyed and He would scatter them across the globe, but even in this dispersion they would never lose their "peoplehood". All true. (more…) Jesus said that whoever follwed Him would face rejection, scorn, derision, even death from family, friends and folks in general. Is their a follower of Jesus who can say he never faced any of this? And there are many more examples of fulfilled prophecy, I just selected the ones most obviously evident today.
We are taught "don't believe it until you see it." God's position is "unless you believe Me first, you will never see Me."
That's because typically they throw up their hands and say "Well, I can't explain it. So it must be Darwinism."
BTW, that would be asking the presuppositional questions
That's where I usually start in arguments with atheists. Atheism, as a philosophy, has no metaphysical grounds for logic or reason. This is especially true of Darwinists, who have to admit (when pressed) that Darwinism doesn't select for truth. I mean, even granting everything to them, they're saying that Darwinism selected for 90% of humans to believe in theism of some stripe, which they say is a lie. Ergo, how can one be confident that "reason" and "logic" are actually true if it's the same Darwinian process that got us there as got us theism?
Man, seriously, you need to take a political science course, because you are completely ignorant on this subject. Totalitarianism is neither left nor right but merely a form of government that can be implemented by either political ideology, as in the case of Stalin (left) and Hitler (right). Both Nazism and fascism developed from right-wing extremism, while communism developed from left-wing extremism.
As far as anarchy being left or right? Are you serious? Anarchy is the complete lack of government! How could it possibly be either a left or right ideology? Wow. Seriously. Take a class and come back.
So YaDinka's apparently read the pop pseudo-philosophers of the New Atheism movement. I don't know how anyone can think Dawkins did a bit of good for atheists with the basic philosophical errors in "The Dawkin–er, God Delusion." And speaking for myself, not only have I read quite a bit of what you've referenced, but I've actually debated and discussed these issues in depth with the "other side" as you call it. That's why I enjoy writing for Triablogue. We deal with actual atheist's arguments, and we've discussed just about all of what you've referenced above.
I found Jonah Goldberg's explanation to be accurate:
Mussolini similarly invented the word “totalitarianism” as a way to describe a cradle-to-grave socialism that would bind all aspects of his nation together. “Mussolini meant it to be appealing to people,” Goldberg said. “It was a sales pitch for his kind of government. He meant it as we would use words like ‘holistic’ today, as sort of covering every aspect of life; everyone’s going to be included, everyone’s going to be part of the community. No child is going to be left behind. That was the meaning of totalitarianism in its original conception.”
Also worth noting is the Nazi's social program. Besides the uniforms and the intense nationalism (and the genocide), pretty much a modern lefty's fantasy come true.
"Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that the Bible is basically all hearsay."
There are many problems with this, not the least of which is that you have to dismiss pretty much all history. Did Caesar exist? Well, all we have is hearsay. Did Napoleon exist? Hearsay, hearsay, hearsay. I mean, none of us was there. For that matter, how do we know that Paine wrote "The Age of Reason" in the first place? I mean, just because the book CLAIMS to be written by Paine….
I think your skepticism goes too far, Hank.
I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong about something, or clueless about something. In fact I come to sites like this to expand my knowledge on certain topics.
When someone shows up and ham-fistedly (is that even a word??) tries to cram their ideology down my throat, or their only rebuttal is name-calling and abuse I tend to just tune them out. Life is too short to waste time arguing with combative people.
In the above example of "Ghost", he seems to have some knowledge and perhaps some valuable input to the discussion. But he chose the "You're stupid" approach and that never works. It just makes him look petty and spiteful.
Maybe when he grows up a little he can come back and we can all talk it over.
"1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause – then what is God's cause? God gets a pass I guess. And it is also not a given that the universe has a beginning."
God doesn't exist in this universe. He predates it else he couldn't create it, and thus he is not defined by it or its rules. When we can fully understand all the whys and wherefores of this universe, maybe we can begin to posit about the conditions before it. But until then your "many scientists" are speaking from as much faith as anyone who tells you about God. Or did you miss the word "believe" in connection to those many scientists? And if the universe was eternal, it would be unchanging which we do know is definitely untrue. Energy is constantly being used up and everything is moving away from the center. The universe may exist at a time scale that makes it seem eternal, but that's hardly the case.
3) But where does God get his morals? If God picks the best morals that he wants, then these morals exist outside of God.
Good and evil exist. God wants us to choose good. It's really pretty simple. Since God created the universe, he set the rules by which it works: life, death, weather, black holes, super novas, all of it. Now, we rely on a certain amount of stability to live our lives. If God protected us from everything we'd define as "bad," we'd hardly have free will and stability now would we? He wants us to choose to do the right thing, and in order for us to be truly free, we have to be exposed to all the dangers that come with freedom including the dangers of evil men. And if you think the actions of nature are immoral, I can't help you very much because you don't have much of a sense of morality or at leats need to check you dictionary. However, consider this: humanity had it within their power to warn those populations, and their governments failed to warn them. Who failure is that? God's or mankinds'?
You're over-generalizing what I said. Besides, those were actual people in your examples. I'm talking about God.
When someone needs examples to prove the existence of Napolean, they can find actual letters the man wrote. Same with everyone else througout history.
If you're in possession of something actually written by the hand of God I'd say you have a very unique souvenir!
And you also misinterpret me. I'm not skeptical regarding the existence of God. I believe He does. I just have serious questions as to the origins and content of the Bible. My skepticism is reserved for organized religion and the hand that man has had in it.
As dcase said, it comes down to faith.
5) How about the non-existence experience of God. None of you, I am sure, have ever experienced God by any of the five senses.
I haven't experienced the emotion called love by any of those sense either. And yet, I am sure that I love my husband more than life itself. I can't touch, see, feel, taste, or smell my husband's love for me either. And yet, I have enduring faith that he loves me. Science can't even prove or disprove love. Do you similarly disbelieve love?
Love aside, I talk to God regularly. He speaks to me as my conscience among other things. My conscience never leads me wrong even if the decisions it leads me to are sometimes very hard to make.
got that right….
YaDinka,
I have indeed read some authors on you list. (BTW, I find Harris to be better at arguments than Hitchens.) I hope I've not disappointed you by doing so. Such reading has only reinforced my Christian theism. Atheism's greatest strength is its first impression. After that, it shows itself not to really answer much. I find it laughable that, in the End of Faith — (Chapter 6?), Harris wants to construct a "science" of right and wrong based on human "intuition"–after first denying that God exists.
Romans claims that man is responsible for the knowledge revealed to him. It doesn't mean that God didn't have a plan for pre-Christ people, since they are clearly depicted as part of God's long term plan…and not just as cannon fodder. Jesus was applied to Abraham though Abraham never knew Christ first hand.
"If people have a hard time accepting certain doctrine, we have evidence that they change things to fit more conveniently into their world-view."
I totally agree with this statement. So my question is which is the view that man made up? Because this:
"If God created everything, He must have more than one pervue. A God of humankind, a God of nature, a creator."
Sounds like it was made up to better fit in with a preferred cultural view of a pluralist God. That's why this defense of pluralism commits suicide. Saying that people make up changes to one true religion is better demonstrated by pluralism than by the exclusivity of a Biblical Christ.
I'll admit that I would much prefer a pluralist God, but it tells me nothing of how he truthfully is. He would seem to be more of a narrow exclusivist, if He's true at all.
I would just like to commend all who have posted (so far) in their consideration. Too often these threads devolve within a few posts to "Christians = Taliban" and "Athiests are going to Hell" ad hominem attacks.
We'll see how long it lasts.
The worst part about being an atheist is having no one to talk to during orgasm.
Does it indeed? Oddly enough again, I never thought I could fly, unassisted. As to the nature of reality, however, you seem to think you know something that I don't about the subject. Let's hear the credentials? Then let's have the facts, brother. I've got hours.
you shouldn't look at evolution as a ladder but as a tree, we are a branch of. funny you claim 'people are so invested in evolution', what are the alternatives we are missing? can you name one that is scientifically provable? i'll save you the trouble; you can't. but i would like to watch you spin your tires in the mud.
as for 'junk dna' there really isn't such a thing. that's a buzz word from the ID movement. science explains it all.
if you really care that much:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html
talkorigins.org can answer ANY claim you come up with. they'd be better then me. you see i am not an evolutionary biologist (and neither are you) so i'll leave it to them, as should you.
Belief, dare I say, is not automatically reality. People, especially unsophisticated ones, see magicians and believe things have disappeared. Anyway, I'm only saying that it is a matter of faith. If you're going to try, as Craig, is doing, move beyond faith to "argues for the existence of God based on evidence not presupposition", I will have to say that the rules of logic, including Occam's Razor says that #4 is a more complicated argument and therefore a less elegant solution than mine.
Now my brain hurts……lol
I did read it but that passage escaped my memory. Thanks for the correction on Paine!!
I like the point that you make. We sat in the balcony and somehow missed seeing Doug despite his enormous height! I was impressed by the civility and respect shown between the two debaters and among the various hosts. The Christian hosts were extremely cordial and welcoming to Mr. Hitchens.
That is a very reasonable response.
But to make this completely valid you would have to monitor them over the course of several years, no? I'd bet that you, like most reasonable people, would think they're a little nuts at first, and then perhaps over time you may be swayed by their actions.
Dr. Craig is a brilliant logician and eloquent advocate of the faith. He is an “evidentialist” in that he argues for the existence of God based on evidence
Bollocks. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God. Outside of our solar system time does not exist. Time, counted you must bear in mind by the turning of this insignificant planet as it orbits an insignificant star, one of an estimated 100billion in an insignificant galaxy. So as time does not exist in relation to the Universe it is entirely illogical and a non sequitur to claim that something must have caused the Universe to exist.
The universe is so far beyond human understanding as to be ineffable. So far from winning the debate Dr. Craig did not even present an intelligent argument. Sorry, but neither Christians nor Chris hitchens sould get involved with existentialist philosophy. Like the universe it is beyond the understanding of narrow minds.
i'd love ONE example when this happened. JUST ONE.
you use 'darwinism' as the ultimate strawman, and you have no idea what his theory states/means.
"Darwinism' believe it or not is not a philosophy. Atheism is not either. back to the library for you pal.
i am an atheist, and the philosophy i believe and enjoy reading the most is existentialism. which has a thread of belief AND non belief in god, i prefer the non belief side. again, before you shout something think (and look) up what you are shouting means.
I'm sorry to hear that but with all respect to your father, we've yet to see your him walking around since. 2,000 years from now he will still be dead, so how is your story relevant to the debate? To be strictly logical, however, and again no disrespect, I only have your word that your father died and can take your word for it or not. The bigger truth is that everybody dies but only one person has walked away from it. Do you see how difficult Dr. Craig's argument actually is? The veracity of witnesses in the first occasion, again, must be taken on faith or not. This is not recorded history as we would accept it today. Even recent history is pretty shakey. Did Washington cut down a cherry tree? Who discovered America?
Please if your going to use the Bible as a reference, please quote scripture. If not you leave it to others and they may not find what you speak of.
Isaiah 11:12 "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." If the Earth has four corners then it is flat. Interesting side though. When Galleleo said the Earth is round he was accused of heresy by the Church. Where did they get the idea that the earth is flat? Also I hardly think that the Jews are "as numerous as the stars". One of the smaller groups on the planet. A minority even.
I too prefer Sam Harris' 'the end of faith' to Christopher Hitchens' 'god is not great'… i mean if i had to pick one.
i think your claim that 'atheism doesn't answer much after saying there is no god'. is flat false. i mean what does the bible say after there is God? you can fill in lots, and i can do the same with atheism. two books 'being and nothingness' and 'the gay science' would be great for you to look at if you haven't already. if you think atheism doesn't go any further then the initial claim then i'd say reread the books, or you missed most of it.
the problem with the books i listed (and believers interpretations of atheist beliefs) is that atheist literature does not have a whole following of apologetics and 'theologians' to explain every part of it. the ten or so books i've listed collectively show it–you just need to get it out yourself. we atheists don't have guys like william lane craig walking around to explain these things. i think we are all better for it as well.
i will also say the three 'new age atheist' books (hitchens, harris, and dawkins) are not meant to be philosophical. they are anti-theist books, they are just arguments AGAINST theism. if you want philosophy with an atheist underpinning i'd recommend sartre. go for his philosophy books, then his literature. he is grossly under read in contemporary america.
Believe me, I'm not comparing Nazism or fascism to either socialism or American conservatism. American brands of both left and right ideology pale in comparison to historical manifestations. Ideologies change and morph over time; the Republican and Democratic parties are perfect examples of this. Neither would be recognizable to their founders and, in fact, they have, in many way, switched places ideologically since each's inception.
However, there is a cottage industry that has risen, mainly through talk radio, in convincing people that the American left is one step away from Stalin's Russia, or that the American right is one step away from Hitler's Germany. Neither of these things is true for the VAST majority of people on either side, yet there are those that would have us believe otherwise (some in this very forum, actually). I think this sort of polarization is both unhealthy and unproductive, which is why I am compelled to argue whenever someone says something like "the left has no problem with rape."
As to your specific points, yes, Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist. Extremists often switch ideologies drastically before settling in to their eventual obsession, especially those with narcissistic personality disorders like Mussolini and Hitler. Still, National Socialism was much closer politically to the right than the left and Hitler's beliefs clashed with leftist ideas at almost every point. You seem to be confusing conservative ideals with extreme right-wing ideology though, much in the same way others intentionally blur the line between liberal ideals and extreme left-wing ideology. I would never say that a typical American conservative is a child of Hitler, yet I have had conservatives say that all liberals are children of Stalin. This type of rhetoric is just counter-productive, as well as being dishonest. We should ask ourselves who benefits from the spread and encouragement of it?
God is King!
The 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental law of physical science, tells us that there should be a unique and powerful being that absorbs entropy/chaos/disorder in the universe that facilitate continuing creation. That being has the totality of energy and matter around the universe with perfection of knowledge and ability.
That is what we call the physically alive, the omniscient, the omnipresent Almighty God from whom everything came from.
Funny, a young man a long long time ago didn't require exact science to know that there is God. He just looked at the billions of stars in the sky at night and he exclaimed "how Wonderful is creation, oh God".
What about all those others? The worship of the One God is, at most, 10,000 years old–the 'truth' that Christ is the only way to Heaven is barely more than 2,000 years old
But human history is far longer than any of that.
Things happened before the 'history' that is contained in the Bible. We KNOW this.
Therefore, the ONLY logical stance is that the Bible is, at least in part, wrong.
That fact does not negate God, or Christ–but it DOES allow far more latitude in belief than ANY of the faiths who bow to Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah would easily accept.
So, your argument is to turn around the statements saying that Christianity took a pluralist God and made it into Jesus. Ok. I can see that side of things. I'm not sure I see the difference of what I'm talking about and what you're talking about. God is God. One source of truth, one source of light. What if Jesus is who he said he is, then? Wouldn't that necessitate one way, universally available to all? Would that preclude him 'speaking' to us in our own languages, and with local representatives throughout time?
Actually, the first one is the only one that matters–
"1. The Cosmological Argument; Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. God is the best explanation for that cause."
The universe/existence >something< started. To start, it HAD to have a 'starter'. As far as we are concerned, that 'starter' is 'God', or 'The Creator'.
We have to start(pun intended) from this point–the atheist point–that it all 'just happened' is insane–even in their scenario existence began–whatever caused existence to begin IS God.
Once we can accept that we can start arguing over the nature of God(we've been doing that–it's called 'religion')
So far, everyone's 'holy book' is nothing more than wild speculation with a touch of morality layered in.
"So as time does not exist in relation to the Universe it is entirely illogical and a non sequitur to claim that something must have caused the Universe to exist."
The universe being an effect requires an adequate cause that is not the universe. To claim there is no evidence for God is an absolute statement for which you have no reason to be taken seriously. As are your claims that the planet is insignificant. Your claim of insignificance is unfounded and you don't live your life in accordance to your atheistic faith statements which demonstrates that you think yourself Bolocks.
"The universe is so far beyond human understanding as to be ineffable."
This and other faith statements will buy you a taco at Dawkins' house.
"So far from winning the debate Dr. Craig did not even present an intelligent argument. Sorry, but neither Christians nor Chris hitchens sould get involved with existentialist philosophy."
Should you?
"Like the universe it is beyond the understanding of narrow minds."
This is like the Amish claiming everyone else doesn't use electricity because they don't. But thanks for demonstrating what kinds of conclusions narrow minds come up with. Class, don't do what Ian is doing.
But you do acknowledge that some liberals say that about conservatives and that not all conservatives, actually only the far right wingers, say that about liberals?
Do you see how you phrased your statement? You're implying that liberals are some innocent bystanders caught in a right wing drive-by. Sorry, but that doesn't wash. No one is making porn movies about Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton (thank all that is holy). No one has a broadway show dedicated to bashing Jimmy Carter. And I have yet to see a skit on SNL poking fun at Obama (trust me, there is a ton of material there).
No such restrictions on republican or conservative targets, right? So cut conservatives some slack when it somes to the attack business because by all accounts the "left" is the one doing the damage to our bi-partisanship.
You seem like an intelligent fellow, the ad hominem attacks and name-calling are beneath you. Stick to the meat of your position and I think you'll be a valuable contributor to any discussion. Your last post is a pretty good one until you got on the partisan soapbox.
Philosophy, N: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophy
Darwinism and Atheism ARE philosophies since they are connecrned with those things that define philosophy. The Darwinist believes there is no God, no abosolute truth, and the principles of being, knowledge and conduct are that of the survival of the fittest.
Just because you're world view doesn't include a diety doesn't mean its not philisophical or religious.
Hitler was a believer in Eugenics, which is the logical outcome of darwinian thinking. While evolution and atheism are both religions, most people dont' see them as such, so its likely that by religious you meant "christian". neither Hitler nor Stalin was anything resembling Christian.
I never quite understand why God gets the blame for all the wrongdoing, human cruelty, bloodshed, and the like. What would you like God to do? Thwart all the plans of evildoers at the last minute (solving nothing really and creating a whole subclass of frustrated evildoers)? Not allow anyone to even think an impure or evil thought? Make us all exactly alike with an inability to imagine something different (including evil)? Besides a boring existence for us (except we wouldn't know it) it would be frustrating for God as well. Why? Because He wants us to choose to do right when choosing wrong is an equally viable option. He wants us to love and appreciate His constant goodness in a world where we are all too often fickle and whimsical with our love. Certainly God could make us obey Him but that kind of obedience is certainly not very satisfying to Him any more than it is to me with my son. I get ever so much more joy when my son chooses to obey me because he loves me.
"some theists say that ethics cannot do without religion because the very meaning of 'good' is nothing more then 'what god approves'. Plato refuted a similar claim more then two thousand years ago by arguing that if gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be because be the gods' approval that makes them good. the alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping neighbours, torture would have been good and helping our neighbours bad. some modern theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this type of dilemma by maintaining that god is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but these theists are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that god is good? that god is approved of by god?"
-peter singer. 'practical ethics'
this of course, ignores all the immoral acts god asks his followers to partake in in the old testament. either way believers are on VERY thin ice morally, they are usually just unaware of alternate arguments.
Being an agnostic myself, I'm not surprised that Hitchens didn't try to defend Atheism… it's a slippery slope, trying to justify 'believing' something does not exists is just as impossible as justifying your belief that it does.
I prefer to not care one way or the other, until someone of any religion uses their beliefs to justify violence against others… then it's time to let them see firsthand if their belief is justified.
I trust in mankind not to allow itself to be extinguished; I believe in this because a few men came together over 200 years ago and designed the greatest nation ever to exist on Earth, and their work provided hope for every man, woman, and child that they too could be free. This land of freedom invades the spirit of everyone who hears of it. Regarless of what they may have been taught in their native lands, when they learn of America, they dream of greater things than even their religions can promise.
If god exist, I pity him… he knows all, we still have a whole universe to explore…
"No one is compelling women of any color to have abortions, but many people on the left and right do think that it is a woman's right to choose."
I don't believe that is accurate. Listen to the reasoning fanatical pro abortionists give for abortions. You'll hear "Crime would be higher if there wasn't abortion" or "the child would spend their life in poverty" etc. The idea of culling the unfit still resonates in their platitudes. Sure, they don't slap you across the face with it, but it's there. If a conservative said something along the lines of the above quote in a context other than abortion, people would righlty assume that "crime" and "poverty" are in fact buzz words for Afro Americans and Hispanics.
"Ghettoization as a leftist principle? Fascinating. Where did you learn that? So I guess industry and local economic expansion patterns are leftist principles? I never knew that. Tell me more."
I didn't say it was a leftist principle. I said the preference is to have them in their separate neighborhoods. Do you deny "white flight"? San Francisco is currently being sued by Afro Americans right now because they're being persecuted by liberals who want them and their ilk out of the beautiful city. Those Afro Americans, living in America's most liberal city, are routinely harassed by cops, etc. The left is great about preaching equality except when it comes to their neighborhoods, their private schools and enterprises. I believe urban decay and poverty can be partly blamed on LBJ's Great Society, the liberal need to keep citizens dependent upon the government and to squash small business owners and individuals who try to gain some economic freedom and individuality.
"The left pushes ideas of physical purity? This is a new one to me, please share details on this fantasy. "
Sir, not a fantasy. I direct you to one Mr. Peter Singer, a Stanford resident philosopher who's books are all the rage among the intelligentsia. He, and a great deal many like him, espouse the idea that thanks to the mapping of DNA those of us (a note, I have muscular dystrophy) will be weeded out. Because we do not have a great life, according to him and a great deal many of them.
well, i HAVE experienced a world WITHOUT god. see how easy that is. i just canceled you out. neither of us need evidence so we are back to were we started.
Now you're talkin….
I have many liberal friends and I know they are disgusted by rape as much as any conservative. They also abhor bathing and cleanliness……ok just kidding…..
Rape is a topic that invokes very strong emotions, and it's our responsibility to address topics like this with clarity. I believe your last post does this quite nicely. let's all agree that rape is very, very bad and move on.
Welcome to the discussion….
LOL, it certainly doesn't….
And until God shows up, we are bound to our faith in Him. Or not depending on which side of the pew you're on….
Charles Darwins 'Origin of the species' SAYS NOTHING ABOUT god. that is all inferred by you. there are 'Darwinists' that believe in god. Charles Darwin's theory is rooted in science, not philosophy. if you didn't get this you should read it again for the first time. also take a real science class.
you are talking about 'social darwinism' which has NOTHING to do with darwins scientific claims. social darwinsim is a pseudoscience. you should stop listening to what people SAY about darwin, and look about what he ACTUALLY said.
Darwinism isn't a 'worldview' if you think this you don't get it. it's a scientific theory, like the theory of gravity.
again read the books, not the white noise around them.
read or see the doc 'constantines sword' please. revisionist history is what you are spouting right now.
I disagree with Doug. Hitchens did not come close to carrying the evening. Hitchens was charming and courteous, but outargued and outclassed. He was meandering and convoluted, and I was disppointed that he didn't make a better showing.
People make an error in reasoning by blaming God for the horrible things that happen on the planet. This is akin to blaming Ford because you drove drunk and crashed into a tree. Its not Ford's fault you made a bad decision.
If you create something, don't you also make up the rules for it? Call it nonsense all you like, but there it is. If I create a world for a work of fiction or a video game, that world operates and exists at my whim according to my rules. I am not defined by those rules any more than you would be, but the creations within that work living in that world are very much bound by my rules and existing by my whims. God can therefore break the rules or re-write them as he sees fit because it is his world to make or break as he pleases. That he doesn't except in the most extraordinary of circumstances (Christ for one) is for the same reason that you choose not to break the rules you set down for your children or for the same reasons that an author or video game programmer doesn't violate the rules flagrantly when creating for others: consistency and stability are necessary. And God wants us to have free will.
The reason there is evil in the world, that bad things happen, comes down to choice. It started with Adam and Eve. they made they choice to break the one rule that God had set, do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. they chose to sin, and by that sin death and suffering entered the world. As humans we are each presented with the choice of obeying God's commands or rejecting them. At some point, each and every one of us make the choice to sin. This is not to say that everything bad that happens happens because of a specific sin that we commited, but because of sin itself. God allows bad things to happend because humanity chose long ago, and continues to chose, to go their own way. But God is a loving God. He doesn't want us to be slaves to sin and death.
Thus he gave the law. The law, as anyone who has read the books of the Law can tell you, is impossible for any mere man to uphold. This is to show us how far we have fallen from the standard God wants us to live to, and so we would understand the level of sacrifice required. God sent Jesus as the fullfillment of the Law, so that we would have access to salvation if we want it. In accepting salvation we are given a promise of a return to world without the pain, death, and suffering of Sin. This is the hope and peace that pass all understanding, that the trails of this world are only temporary, that beyond the dark vale of this world lies a brighter shore.
As for those who haven't heard the gospel, there are a few things to consider. One, is that God's quality is known by the works of of his hand. By creation itself, we know there is a creator, so any person out there in any tribe that hasn't heard the gospel, still knows that there is more to life then what they see. Two, God can save those whom he wishes to save. Consider the theif on the cross next to Jesus, who as granted salvation even tho he was not baptized, etc. God sees the heart. He will see those that never heard the Good News, he will see how they tried to live, and he will judge from there however he shall. Three, this argument should be a call to all of us Christians to follow Jesus' command to take the good news to all people of all nations.
The word socialism is just a word. If you study extreme political movements you'll find they quite often name themselves misleadingly. Orwell predicted this behavior quite accurately. Insisting the Nazis were leftists because their name had the word socialism in it is about as useful as claiming the Swedish National Democrats are the equivalent of the American Democratic Party (it is actually a far right party).
Stalin liked Hitler? Wow. Seriously, if this is what Jonah Goldberg's book has taught you then I suggest you get a more expansive education. Again, totalitarian is NOT a right OR left ideology. It is a type of government that has been used by ideologues from both sides of the spectrum. Whether you are enforcing fascist programs like Hitler and Mussolini or communist programs like Stalin, totalitarianism is just the style chosen, as opposed to a dictatorship or monarchy, either of which would have worked equally as well for any of them. Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini differed greatly philosophically, from they way markets were addressed to the role of race and sexuality in society. While their methods were often very similar, what they were enforcing was often very different.
Because as humans we are social creatures. We do not live the lone wolf lifestyles of animals because of the nececcity of belonging to society. For instance even gangs who most of us would consider immoral or at least engage in illeagal activities have a sort of 'moral code'. People who want to belong to such a gang or any other social group has to abide by that code. There are several things that we have the urge to do but we suppress those urges as to not be and outcast. And surely you realize there are cultures who don't share our revulsion to rape. It it considered a social norm to them.
Fundamental to belief in God is FAITH. Faith is something that transends reason or logic, and therefore non-believers scoff at the notion and at the believers. I see faith as a blessing from God. I am thankful that even though my human mind is incapable of understanding the secretes of the universe and existince in general, I am blessed to have been delath a measure of faith that leads me to know that all belongs to an omnipotent God.
It's baffling to me how some believe that we can one day intellectually raise man up to be a god, but that it is unthinkable to believe that God would lower himself do be a mere man (Jesus Christ).
The Big Bang Theory: First there was nothing. Then it exploded.
I'm disingenuous?! The link I provided was from a teacher's guide written by the director of the Holocaust Center in Pittsburgh! Just how far does this "leftist" conspiracy go exactly? Is any of our history valid, or should it all be rewritten by acceptably rightist historians? Also, just so we're clear, I compared YOU with Limbaugh, no one else…and that was because your knowledge of political systems and philosophies was rudimentary at best. If you truly think Rush Limbaugh's life as a career radio man is more impressive or constitutes accomplishing "more" than Barack Obama, well, I guess you must really love radio! LOL. As an aside, Jonah Goldberg is a much more educated and experienced man than Rush Limbaugh. Doesn't mean I agree with him either, but facts are facts.
Well, the size of posts are so limited I try to get the gist through first. in any case my reference from Isaiah come from Is;40:22…"It is He who sits above the circle of the Earth." And the use of the phrase 'four corners of the earth' is used in several books of the OT and comes from either a Hebrew expression or ancient Greek (septuagent) expression indicating totality. Sorta like the expression in Job 'I have escaped by the skin of my teeth' meaning his gums. Amazing how many common expressions find their roots in the OT. And I just learned yesterday that the tales of Columbus being told constantly that the earth was flat and in sailing ever west he would meet destruction originally comes from an American pamphlet from the 18th cent. Nothing to do with Galileo, but there it is.
YaDinka, you don't appear to have read much of Origin. It is an absolutely philosophical document. There are whole classes devoted to The Philosophy of Science when dealing with Origin of Species. The entire claim is that we would normally claim species and complexity would come from a Creator and Darwin claims it to be a purely naturalistic account of how species got here.
If you want to read a well written document on the philosophy of Darwin read "The Cambridge Companion to the "Origin of Species".
Darwinism is a world view and it also being a scientific theory doesn't change that.
Hitchens indeed knows how to work the crowd, and he does raise some points that a decent apologist must address. However, he is also a master of red herring and straw men fallacies. I've watched several different debates and he is really good at changing the subject right as a counter argument begins to gain ground against him. Also, his conflation of all religious traditions into the category of "religion" is patently ridiculous, and yet he still draws quite the crowd.
While I have always been deeply attracted to natural theology as a primary part of the approach to understanding something of God's existence, the emotional response to evil is also an important area to address. One thing that I have found to be very powerful is contained in Pope Benedict's most recent encyclical, Spe Salve. In addressing the problem of evil, he points out that once we have committed to casting away God in the face of horrific suffering, we are still left with it, except now with no hope of there being any redemptive value whatsoever. Hitchens often argues in bad faith when he accuses Christians of being cavalier about suffering simply because they believe it may have some value IN SPITE OF the pain it causes and the human evil that often engenders it. Turning one's back on God because we can't understand why some horrific things are allowed does nothing to save us from these horrific things. Hitchens prefers Pandora's box without the hope at the bottom. Of course, one can still turn away or reject God, but now one must merely assert some sense of moral outrage and demand justice against an utterly indifferent universe characterized by suffering. Hitch may be able to keep his high moral tone in said situation, but most people could not or would not do so. And why should they? If the universe is devoid of meaning, justice, or natures that call forth particular choices in order to truly exist as they ought (aka an objective moral framework), then why continue to be moral when it becomes difficult? No one has effectively countered Dostoevsky from "The Possessed": If there is no God, then everything is permissible. This is not so because without God no one can command, but because without God, there is no power which can provide even the basis for a moral framework. Without God, then all meanings are ultimately subjective and open to deconstruction, including moral meaning.
Hey, I just discovered how to get around the size limitation regarding original posts. First post a paragraph or two, then quickly hit 'edit' and you can add much more to make a post more complete! Cool.
You have to start with the Bible. Remember that God is triune, three in one (a confusing concept, I use the water analogy, Water, Ice, and steam are all H2O, but in different forms). All three parts of God were present from the begining.
Start with John 1: "In the beginning was the Word…" It explains that Jesus is the Word of God and there from the begining.
Genesis 1:1 Mentions God the Father. 1:2 the holy sprit (and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.) 1:3 brings in Jesus, "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." Jesus is the Word, seen in God Speaking. Skip ahead to the Fall. We see God punishing Man, Woman, and the Serpent for sinning. Look at the curse on the serpent. It contains the first Prophecy in the Bible. It refers to the coming of Christ and salvation, Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Good points, all. The definition of left and right is an interesting case and I think there are probably multiple definitions that we confuse on a constant basis, especially when we're talking about the American version of them.
As for the existence of God…you're right, none of this was very on topic, was it? Personally, I believe that a god exists and created the universe. However, I do not believe the human mind is close to capable of understanding the ins and outs of this god, nor do I think this god is especially interested in us beyond any other living entity. If I had to label myself, I suppose I would be a classic deist. Atheism just seems kind of pointless to me…how could the universe have come from nothing at all?
I don't mean to imply what you say about Galileo is wrong. just that part about ole Chris.
Hey, I'm a Presbyterian, so I'd take you up on that beer offer
However, in order to get you "beyond [your] reluctance to accept the Bible as the Word of God" I'd have to know exactly what your reluctance stems from. IOW, you believe in God, so is this an issue where you just don't think He would communicate with us? Or is it an issue that even if He did communicate with us, you don't know how to recognize that communication? Is it sifting through the competing claims that's problematic? Or is it a cultural or familial reason? Obviously, it could be any of those plus a whole host more. There's no cookie-cutter answer for each of those.
I am curious by your last sentence though. Because I don't see why anyone would want to have "faith in something written by man." I mean, I understand if you have faith in something you believe to be inspired by God (as I do), but if you don't believe in such inspiration, why would you wish for faith in that? (Genuine question, not accusatory.)
if indeed his mind would be open to such; perhaps we were a tad harsh but understand that the pattern has (and contnues to be) consistent. Falling back on NEA teaching tools to assert a point shows the range of thought; we questioned such orthodoxy when we were 17… what bothers us the most is, like you, we address the points item by item and the response ALWAYS ignores the points without rebuttal, and continues the erroneous assertions. Which then,of course are followed with personal slander. 'Ghost' is just that- a cypher created to spread disinformation, not engage in an honest exchange of ideas. Were that it be so… perhaps in his more reflective future he will see goodness in individuals instead of in the state. We can always hope and pray for the best.
1. Disbelief in God is also convenient. There is not proof for a universal negative so how can I prove that God is not eternal? But you try to purchase the necessity that God has to have a beginning because the universe has to have a beginning. Given what we know of entropy and physics, a physical universe must have a beginning, because there's not such thing as a perpetual motion machine. But God is not a physical being, so there's nothing to require that he have a beginning. So while God doesn't have to have a beginning, the universe does.
2. Again, why must a complex being with no physical dependency necessitate a creator?
3. But if a cannibal doesn't know eating the dead is wrong, how can you say it's objectively wrong? I don't think you fully understand what we mean by objective. It means that the whole world in every culture can think murder is right and it would still be wrong. It doesn't matter what culture thinks because our decision to do or not do something tells us nothing of its morality.
But I think your intuition tells you that slavery, child molestation, and rape are actually wrong, in spite of what culture or practice determine.
Why the continued use of "we" and "our?" Are you speaking for more than one person, or are you more than one person? Also, I'm not sure when "teacher's guide" became a bad word, but if it is your position that history is liquid and written by the victors, I'd agree with you. Not sure how that affects our current educational system though. On that subject, how do you feel about the Bible? Do you feel that the many edits and revisions it has been through over time have changed the message that Jesus originally intended? I just wonder who IS qualified to write history or establish facts, in your mind.
It's a bad idea to assume what Christians know or don't know of alternate arguments. I would say that you appear to know very little of arguments outside of academic pop-drivel from pro-infanticide goons like Singer. When I say, "religious ethics" I don't mean "what God approves" so Singer already completely misunderstands what thousands of years of Judeo Christian thinking has taught.
'When I say, "religious ethics" I don't mean "what God approves" '
what's the difference? yeah say my arguments are drivel. nice double talk here.
It's not wise to exegete personal experience. I haven't experienced God so to speak but I believe in Him and have good reason to. One claims to experience God the other claims to experience a world without God but like YaDinka said, neither of these can be entered as evidence in a debate. Our experiences can mislead.
I can't prove there is no god, but no one can prove there is one. Which leads me to ,, who the hell cares if there is one, 2, or more! If anyone is bent on praying to things that have no proof of existence and these people group together for that reason, have at it. I only ask that those that claim to be holy believers be good to other people. I hate hypocrites.
we is an idiom that is preferred. The NEA is a hard left organization ('Goals 2000') and this is typical of the revisionism that is standard fare in our classrooms. Yes it is a dim view of our educational system. We have immediate family that is a Professor at UT and also Knoxville College (an all black college) and he is horrified on a daily basis at what propaganda is being tayght as fact- all with a secular left world view. If you subscribe to that, fine. The Bible is the Word of God as interpeted by man. The King James version is accepted and while thinking people understand that this is a translation of Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English it's truths are loud and clear.
History is an honest recantation of assembled facts. It can be accurate when done well by principled people. In our mind we have read and studied and experienced and know the truth when we see it. You have made references to both our educational level (Masters in Politcal Science. minor in English Lit Columbia) and our career path (not open to discussion with you, sorry) and it has been to demean, not to debate.
You have a command of the language that others of your stripe haven't shown and that does set you apart, it also causes your sophomoric spin to be taken more seriously that it deserves. You have spoken of your contempt for the denizens of this site and it doesn't speak well of you.
We do not go into the Daily Kos spoiling for a fight. If you would like to be taken seriously you need to be serious and think for yourself, not regurgitate tired leftist cliche's.
Clear enough?
EXACTLY! I was responding to your assertion that NONE of us has ever experienced God. With all due respect, that's a wee bit arrogant. Who are you to say that? You have your experience without – I have my experience with – we cancel each other out. NO ONE knows for sure. This was not an attempt to debate you on who is right, or even if God exists or not – just a reminder that you really don't know any more than anyone else. All you have is YOUR personal experience, what you believe, and, in the end, your opinion. Peace be with you.
Katrinka,
If Jesus is who he says he is then that account is different than the other claims about him. The Jews don't believe he's God. The Muslims say he's just a prophet and did not resurrect. The atheist might say he's just a teacher. These are mutually exclusive claims that cannot be harmonized. if one opinion of Jesus is right, then the others are necessarily wrong, and the implications are huge. For instance, if Jesus didn't raise from the dead then I think my own life has largely been following a complete lie.
There's nothing within Jesus' exclusivity that obligates him to speak to everyone through many languages and representations. It's entirely possible that few will be saved, and it doesn't tell me anything about Jesus needing to appear to everyone.
I would encourge anyone who is actively searching for these answers to read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I'm sure many of you already have – it helped me answer a lot of questions I had.
YaDinka,
You are right. The atheists books do have a lot more to say. I mean to relay that, for me, what they say is not meaningful or "ringing the bell."
I'm not sure what you mean by "we atheists don't have guys like william lane craig walking around to explain these things." Isn't that what Dawkins, Dennet, and others are trying to do? Or Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll (whom I've not read), others? There are a long line of atheists trying to do just that, it seems.
BTW, I like atheists. The self-aware atheist makes for great conversation. I just cannot be one, even though I've looked over the fence with a lot of scrutiny.
I don't believe that belief in God is a rational decision; in other words, the decision does not come first, all the rationalization comes after. It's more of a mystical experience. People make a decision to participate in a religion, not to believe in God.
Okay, I don't have time right now to finish looking up and gathering all the verses I was going to, I'll post them after work. the jist of what i'm saying is that A: the only guaranteed way to heaven is through Christ Jesus. and B: However, Who is saved and who isn't saved is up to Jesus, and He will decided about those who never heard the gospel, or died before Jesus' ressurection.
Apotheosis,
The question is whether there is some objective and transcendent standard that lies behind our moral sentiments, regardless of what words we use to criticize the acts that go against them. Are you saying the act is screwed up because of your evolutionary makeup, because you judge that it's bad for society, because you find it personally distasteful, or because it deviates from a transcendent goodness that all people ought to recognize and abide by? The first three options seem intellectually unsatisfying when matched up against the reality of moral apprehension as it is actually experienced. Hitchens said in the debate that really these apprehensions are just evolutionary products, much as he would like them to be more than that. But we might do well to ask ourselves the next time we experience some beautiful act of kindness or reprehensible act of degradation whether that answer rings true, not to mention just how it is that apprehension of any kind came into the picture if there is no immaterial aspect of our being.
good, sensible post.
i could see where you'd make your other conclusions. though i don't agree with them.
i'd recommend you read this it's (somewhat) short:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/...
i think you, unlike others here, will at least try. this also shows the humanity that can be found in an atheistic worldview.
I can relate to this. I guess I do simply "need to know". At some point I actually feel guilty that I should even ask the question – why should I assume God needs to answer me on anything? He doesn't. Still, it nags at me, and when your child starts asking, and if you believe that his literal soul may be at stake, and given the fact that he's just joined the military – well, it keeps a Mother up at night.
"yeah say my arguments are drivel. nice double talk here."
YaDinka, you're right that you didn't have that coming. Sorry, I'll try to be more careful next time.
The difference between religious ethics may be something any individual religion could believe, i.e. "God commands female genital mutilation". What God actually approves may be very different from what my religion approves. What Singer came up with doesn't follow.
I've read that, and also "The Screwtape Letters" which I found amazing. It's been awhile, though, and I need to reread it.
the rape thing we spoke of is being hugely misinterpreted here; wewere speaking of it as an institution. Mr Ghost did not address the silence of the left over the horrible mistreatment of women, rape as punishment, clitorectomies and such but have no problem asserting that pregnancy is akin to 'slavery' (Obama's justice dept) and only whilt males can rape because it is a crime of power vs. the powerless… and then the name calling ensued. Please do not be fooled…
the rape thing we spoke of is being hugely misinterpreted here; wewere speaking of it as an institution. Mr Ghost did not address the silence of the left over the horrible mistreatment of women, rape as punishment, clitorectomies and such but have no problem asserting that pregnancy is akin to 'slavery' (Obama's justice dept) and only white males can rape because it is a crime of power vs. the powerless… and then the name calling ensued. Please do not be fooled…
but again, as you (or I) are creating this work of fiction or video game WE ARE EXISTING IN THE WORLD WE ARE MAKING IT IN. in fiction, your letters and sentences exist according to the rules of language, grammer. what they are printed on. where the book is sold as finished product. you are also a product of an egg and sperm from your mother and father. you are NEVER OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE. again, c'mon.
had your argument been that the bible is fiction why then you'd be on to something.
BTW, I was responding above to Japple, who seems to have disappeared. I may have responded to the wrong person. If so, I apologize.
I could (and will) ask in turn just how much "greater good" most religious charities ACTUALLY do. I mean ASIDE from giving well-meaning financially-secure white people something to do to in their spare time to make them feel less guilty about being financially secure and white… and plenty of secular organizations do the same thing, see: Bono.
The best example religious charities used to have of their worth was Mother Theresa, and by now everyone from Hitchens to Penn & Teller have nicely exposed the hell out of that one. So, what else? Yes, it's nice to send food and medicine to Africa… how much GOOD is it actually doing? Last I checked, the hell-holes are still hell-holes no matter how many ramshackle churches get built in the middle of the war zones. And please forgive me if I don't regard "well, at least now they'll go to HEAVEN post-death-by-machete" as good enough.
YaDinka,
I've not always treated others with the respect they deserve…
But here's what I know: many atheists are deeply concerned about morality, common sense, saving civilization, helping others, pursuing truth, etc.
I'm just convinced that the atheist worldview does not adequately account for such intense desires. I say these desires reflect the image of God in man (even in atheists).
And I sincerely want for God to bless you.
This is good reading. Most of my friends who believe there is a god, use the "faith" argument to try to combat the logic…
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/
so you are arguing that you follow what your religion says, not god? am i misinterpreting? that is a very curious statement.
if you don't follow god, what's the point? at that level you are just in a club being told what to do by guys is silly hats, right? i mean your are choosing what is right and what is wrong, kind of like what we do as atheists.
i'd like you to push/explain this a little further, if i didn't (or did) follow you… i've yet to hear a believer say they are willing to disregard a sacred text in favor of a religion or personal opinion/morals. curious. thanks in advance, take your time if needed.
Okay, here are a couple more verses that pertain to this, i should hopefuly have something more for you later.
Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
So if God is known from the creation around him, all around the world can seek him, and if they seek him with all their heart, they will find him, and find salvation in Jesus, even though they may not know his name.
and Genesis 18:25 "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
Jesus sees the heart, he knows which of those that didn't hear the gospel were truely seeking Him, and he will show them mercy (or not) accordingly.
I don't think you quite read what I wrote. For the creations within my world, the rules as I create them are the way things are. They are bound by those rules. However, I am not bound by the rules I set down for my created world simply because I created it.
You are arguing that God must be bound by the rules of this Universe because you and I are bound by the rules of this Universe. I am arguing that since God created this Universe, he preexisted it and exists as a thing apart from it and is therefore not bound by the rules he set down for it. As such he can also break or re-write the rules of this Universe as he sees fit; when he does so, we call those events Miracles.
Were there people before Adam? Evidence seems lacking.And wouldn't Adam have told his kids the Truth? So where did paganism come from? Did some grouchy great to the seventh decide to invent ancestor worship to impress some punk grandkid? And is it God's fault if he gives the Truth, but humans twist it to a lie for their own advantage?
I didn't say representations, I said representatives. He appointed apostles to speak in His stead after His mission was fulfilled, didn't he? If is He "the light and life of the *world*," then why would there not be a plan for all mankind? Why wou
I didn't say representations, I said representatives. He appointed apostles to speak in His stead after His mission was fulfilled, didn't he? If is He "the light and life of the *world*," then why would there not be a plan for all mankind?
ok so then Jesus is either a normal man, or he didn't exist if he was god.
again, you can't have it both ways. i can't so neither can you.
just seems that your whole argument isn't provable, and even if it was true, human brains could not comprehend any of it (illiterate tribes 2000 years ago even more so) so why keep making up as we go along? seems VERY worthless, and if there is a god there is a 100% chance he will never be described accurately anyway (making bibles and other sacred texts worthless). it's just being intellectually honest to yourself, and to me right now. rather then saying 'i don't know' (like i do) you say 'he exists outside everything' and this is supposed to mean something to anybody. c'mon, that's phony. and garbage. it means nothing.
i wish your skeptism for atheism, and 'darwinism' could be reserved for: "You are arguing that God must be bound by the rules of this Universe because you and I are bound by the rules of this Universe. I am arguing that since God created this Universe, he preexisted it and exists as a thing apart from it and is therefore not bound by the rules he set down for it. As such he can also break or re-write the rules of this Universe as he sees fit; when he does so, we call those events Miracles."
huh?
For those who are interested in understanding Craig's first argument from the origin of the universe, I wrote an analysis of it here:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how...
The technical name for it is the "kalam" cosmological argument.
Also, for those who are unfamiliar with how scholars argue for the resurrection using just a few of the most reliable historical "knowns", check this out.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/gar...
It turns out that the most reliable statement of the basic facts of the resurrection narrative go back to within FIVE YEARS of the death of Jesus.
For an explanation of Craig's second argument, the argument from fine-tuning, check out this post which explains some of the cosmological constants and quantities that Craig mentioned. If you change these numbers even slightly from what they are, the universe would no longer support life. Either chemical diversity would be lost, or stars would not form, or the universe would have recollapsed early on, etc.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/is-...
The values of these constants and quantities are not caused by natural laws, they are selected by whoever or whatever is doing the creating. The vast majority of selections DO NOT support the minimal requirements for life of any kind.
I am not compelled to address the "silence" of the left regarding the things you refer to, because that would entail acknowledging it and I do not. The "left" is not a monolith anymore than the "right" is. There are people across the political spectrum who are disgusted by each and every one of the things you mentioned, but one has only so much time and energy to focus on them. Of course, none of that justifies your claim that the left is fine rape. You made a stupid claim and have spent the rest of the day trying to divert attention away from that claim. I am cool with everyone else here; they seem pretty balanced and willing to discuss subjects intelligently and calmly. You, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about (and since you've already written me off, that shouldn't matter too much).
Agreed. Hitchens presents lucid arguments from a learning perspective instead of the portotypical raving lunatic lefty hippie. I am a non-practicing Catholic. My concerns with the church have nothing to do wih God's existence, I believe he exists. I would love to have seen a Buckley/Hitchens debate. I am envious.
Doug, great observations! I'm a pastor and I see the "church" in the same seat as Dr. Craig. Being right is not the point. Leaders of western Christian movements consistently fail to see that faith intersects the questions people are asking in their hearts, instead we focus on the arguments… which Jesus rarely did.
Ex. You may show someone in a consumer magazine why one product is theoretically the best choice, but the buyer stills wants the "sporty" model, right?
As a spiritual leader, I try to explore why someone wants the sporty model…i.e. adventure, not sure about my worth so I'll compensate with the sporty model, etc. What many "professional" christians don't like to talk about is the fact that God wants to deliver on those desires as well. He is the answer to those "soul" longings or desires.
Hitchens understands "why" they want the sporty model and he speaks to that.
He brings up the objections of evil and suffering because deep down people want to know that someone cares. We, (guys like me) try to convince people of the "correctness" of God when they really just want to know that someone cares or that they are loved.
If you can keep that in doubt, you can dissuade someone from faith & hope. You might won them to duty or obligation but not faith.
We could go around and around here all night, but I have a family, so basically, NO, I cannot prove the existence of Jesus or God to YOU, because faith is not LOGICAL. That is why they call it FAITH, and if you are so closed-minded that you are equating my "loose definition" of Jesus with Santa, and your cousin's imaginary friend – we are indeed at an impasse. I have a challenge for you that you will undoubtedly find laughable. If you are so sure of the fact that God does not exist, since the ramifications for you are so important if you are WRONG, begin to read a passage from the Bible each day. Maybe you already have – I know nothing about you, but if you haven't – it won't kill you. Start with a small prayer, after, even if you have to gag to get it out. Allow yourself the POSSIBILITY that there is someone that hears. Ask for understanding and do it earnestly. Admit that you COULD be wrong. Do this for a while. See if you feel any differently. I dare you. Good night.
It's not so much that someone needs a book, a religion, or a God to tell them right from wrong. I think most people have an inherent sense that something either right or wrong. Sometimes, there is a need for affirmation of right and wrong, in our minds, and relgion and faith can help. Anyone who takes religion seriously does a lot of introspection. The questions are endless.
you are correct in your assertion that it doesn't matter much, the concern here is not with you. We stand by what we said from moment one. You never addressed any core issues nor were you really interested in an honest exchange of ideas with those you disagree. You criticize without context, and judge others to have educational deficiencies while you display complete and utter lack of knowledge of both politics and philosophy. Our disdain for you is at least equal to yours You are not 'compelled' to do anything other than engage in civil discourse. You are correct about the other folks you have conversed with- they are nice, much more so than you. Quite frankly sir, you bore the heck out of us with your left wing condescension and know it all knownothingness. Let us agree to disagree and disengage.
You might want to ask this person what hisher definition of "logic and reason" is…..
I'd be willing to bet it's whatever fits their dim view
there are a couple of twits who decided to exorcise their demons at our expense; we love a spirited debate(can you tell?) but the ideologically driven hard left are always right, like the Soviets used to say… so,you make a salient point which they ignore (always!) and then repeat either ad hominem attacks or their favorite Marxist bromide (usually, but not relegated to racist, etc.) and seem to be searching for a fight. We do not shirk from either…
No disrespect taken. The argument is relevant because you casually dismiss the witnesses for who, the simple answer is, Jesus died.
"This is not recorded history as we would accept it today"
If this is your only defense, then all history is hearsay. In 2000 years they can say the same of what we are living this very moment. Is this moment a lie?
[...] A debate faith and non-faith noted. [...]
[...] contrast from a conservative commentator, check out this review of the same debate by Doug TenNapel at Big Hollywod: Christopher Hitchens is a kind of [...]
"This is the demonstration of class and restraint I’ve noticed from a conservative Christian culture that has a much better record of tolerance than the liberal non-Christian culture."
Even if this was true, it'd be the logical fallacy of style over substance. The fact is that your blog in of itself is considerably more vicious and patronising than the average "Liberal" one. You're only claiming "tolerance" because you know that's exactly what you're not.
There's a difference between impatience towards irrational viewpoints, and intolerance towards something like homosexuality, which you hold. The "Well at least we let you argue your case!" isn't really true when at the end of the day you have no real respect for logical discourse(or else you wouldn't drill in a point of style over substance).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KND44ZR5CKE
Plenty of Christians are very violent. It's a bit of a fallacy that atheists are more closed minded, arrogant and volatile when there aren't really many atheist lobby groups like the ones in the video.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Does God Exist? Hitchens vs. Craig bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/04/08/does-god-exist-hitchens-vs-craig – view page – cached I had the opportunity to see Christopher Hitchens debate Dr. William Lane Craig on the topic “Does God Exist?” at BIOLA University. The gymnasium was packed with 3,000 people, most of whom were Christians but some non-believers made a showing. Without the home court advantage, you might think Hitchens would be the Lion cast into Daniel’s Den. Surely the reciprocal of the secular university would happen; he’d get pies thrown at him, and he would be regularly booed, shouted down and mocked. Hardly. — From the page [...]
You pity God?! Who are you to to put yourself above the almighty creator and ruler of the universe??? God doesn't feel a need to defend the way things are, so why should you? He doesn't think hell is wrong, so who are we to say we wish it weren't real?? Who are we?? We are like the flowers of the field, who are here for a little while, and then disappear only to be forgotten. God is eternal. He is the beginning and the end. He is Just, and Righteous, and Holy, and Good, and Compassionate. We are the fallen creation. Our sinful nature and desire to lift ourselves above our creator is the reason for all the bad in this world. God is perfect in every way and there is a reason we cannot see Him. If our human eyes were to look upon His face we would surely die at the sight of Him. There are legions of Angels who cry at his feet, "Holy Holy Holy" for all time. He made the world and the heavens and He knows infinitely more than we could ever claim to know. We are in HIS WORLD. Don't forget that. He is not in ours, and he is not one to pity. For he could turn you to dust in this very moment. You should get on your knees and ask God to reveal Himself to you in the ways that He has revealed Himself to the believers because any moment on this earth could be your last and there are no second chances. Whether you like it or not the day of judgement is coming.
Protestant morays? I didn't know eels had religious affiliations. Perhaps you meant morés.
You must be logged in to post a comment.