Is this the Atheist Fanatics Forums Off-Topic?

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: Please, don't turn this into user-specific trolling

 

[Danielos]

http://fora.tv/2007/10/11/Christopher_Hitchens_Debates_Alister_McGrath

Anyone interested seeing a debate between a Christian an an Atheist should really look at this clip! A very good debate with some excellent points!

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm cringing before I click a link that has Hitchens in it

 

[Lillefix]

I agree. I find Hitchens to be a rather obnoxious man, and he uses so many unnecessarily big words and he speaks in an overly eloquent way, like "many religions force themselves to think of the birth canal as a one–way street". Sure it is true, but there must be better ways to phrase it than than.

And he loves to talk. Just listen to the discussion between him and Stephen Fry.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I'm cringing before I click a link that has Hitchens in it

So we agree on something then.
I don't really have the impression that this place is so full of non-believers. It is only that a few young men have a peculiar obsession with religion in spite of being hard-core atheists and they type very fast very often.
The only explanation for this phenomena that makes sense to me is that the same young men tend to be stalwart supporters of status quo otherwise, and have the natural youthful urge to rebel against at least one traditional feature in society. But this is only speculation from my part so don't take it for anything more.

 

[Seon]

Yeah.. Christopher Hitchens sounds like a jerk to an Atheist like me... I didn't even click on the link because of that

 

[LucyDuke]

I agree. I find Hitchens to be a rather obnoxious man, and he uses so many unnecessarily big words and he speaks in an overly eloquent way, like "many religions force themselves to think of the birth canal as a one–way street". Sure it is true, but there must be better ways to phrase it than than.

And he loves to talk. Just listen to the discussion between him and Stephen Fry.

That's not eloquence, it's just verbosity.

many religions force themselves to think of the birth canal as a one–way street

What does this even mean?

 

[Perfection]

Yeah.. Christopher Hitchens sounds like a jerk

He is a jerk, a funny, well-spoken, and often correct jerk.

That's why I like him!

 

[Death_Machine]

^ everybody who replied to me the last couple of days: Honestly, I don't give a damn enough to argue this at length.

Miles Tag, go hit up Thuderfall for a Mod application.

Others: my best (in this case easiest) argument for ID is the ecosystems here on the earth, or perhaps the way that our solar system flies through the galaxy & never smashes into anything bigger. There sure are an awful lot of moving parts for these things to work as well as they do....... especially if nobody designed it to work that way.

 

[Danielos]

I agree that Hitchens can be provocative, lazy and arrogant, but he is also very funny and often has very good arguments. I think he manages really well in the linked debate, and wasn´t too obnoxious there...

 

[Bill3000]

Others: my best (in this case easiest) argument for ID is the ecosystems here on the earth, or perhaps the way that our solar system flies through the galaxy & never smashes into anything bigger. There sure are an awful lot of moving parts for these things to work as well as they do....... especially if nobody designed it to work that way.

All of that's easily described by the anthropic principle.

 

[Danielos]

^ Others: my best (in this case easiest) argument for ID is the ecosystems here on the earth, or perhaps the way that our solar system flies through the galaxy & never smashes into anything bigger. There sure are an awful lot of moving parts for these things to work as well as they do....... especially if nobody designed it to work that way.

If the universe was designed specifically for us, why should there even be something out there that we could smash into?

 

[Death_Machine]

If the universe was designed specifically for us, why should there even be something out there that we could smash into?

Do you proofread what you write before you post it?

 

[Steph]

Asteroids?

 

[Danielos]

Do you proofread what you write before you post it?

Well, I might not be as eloquent as Douglas Adams but his quote fits what I was trying to say:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

 

[Death_Machine]

^ see, I really don't care enough about shoving my religious beliefs (or lack there of) down anybody's throat.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

My car was not intelligently designed, it also has a lot of moving parts, but it keeps breaking down.

DM, don't want to argue at length? Don't! \o/ You posted one of the best reasons to believe and have faith in God not to long ago. It only gets downhill from there

 

[Death_Machine]

DM, don't want to argue at length? Don't! \o/ You posted one of the best reasons to believe and have faith in God not to long ago. It only gets downhill from there

I'm curious as to which post you think that was.

I also find your statement kind of ironic because I'm not exactly a holy roller.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm curious as to which post you think that was.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8226482&postcount=154

I like that reason a lot because it isn't scientific. Reasons to have faith or believe are not supposed to be scientific (in my most humble of opinions).

I also find your statement kind of ironic because I'm not exactly a holy roller.

I believe that's a good thing.

 

[Winner]

Question: can you disprove God in the concrete way that you expect theists to concretely prove his existence? You can't, so the most logical position to take is "I don't believe in God, but I don't discount his existence," since that is absolutely the best you can do with the evidence that can be gathered. To definitively claim a position without definitive evidence supporting it, well, that makes you as "bad" as the theists you so readily deride.

No.

You can't disprove God and trillions of other things you can possibly make up. I say there's an invisible parrot on my shoulder - disprove it.

That way, every one would have to be an agnostic on trillions of ridiculous things, because they can't be disproved. Such an attitude is useless and it goes against rational sceptical way of thinking.

A sceptic asks - why do you think there's an invisible parrot on your shoulder? Do you have any evidence? How is your invisible parrot theory better than the no parrot theory?

Therefore, it is a sign of rational mind to doubt. Being a sceptic is a good thing. Being an agnostic means that you're not prepared to think rationally to the very end. That is hypoctitical as most agnostics believe that their position is the most rational one.

So now prudence = religion?

Is it prudent to admit the possibility of an invisible parrot without a strong evidence supporting such a crazy thing? No. Quite on the contrary: until a strong evidence is presented, it is prudent to not believe in such a claim.

If you say things like "I cannot know if the parrot exists or not", you're making a baseless claim - just like the religious people when they claim there is God. So, there is a similarity.