Does Atheism Poison Everything? debate; Christopher Hitchens vs David Berlinski

Christopher Hitchens raised an unusual reason for denying god exists. Berlinski claimed that God created humans in his image. Hitchens asked if that was true, why did god allow the demise of the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons? After all, they were two additional human species along with us, the Homo sapiens. Berlinski was silent as he searched for a response. Score one for Hitchens.

I wondered if very large brains could have participated in the demise of the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons? If the mothers and their babies died at birth, the number of females to procreate would be widely dimished. Could this have led to the end of those large-headed humans? Did god goof the making of his creatures and finally got it right with Homo sapiens? Or was it evolution? Survival of the fittest?

BBB

Thanks for that link. Looks like Hitchens didn't have much of an opponent.

I was amused because the debate was hosted by the Fixed Point Foundation (fixed-point.org), which is a very conservative Christian organization. I guess they thought the pompus Berlinski would wash the floor with Hitchens. Big mistake!

BBB

Maybe they should have tried putting him up against Polkinghorne.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-625904119099996720#

I wonder if Polkinghorne gave up science because it didn't agree with his religious beliefs?

BBB

David Berlinski's style of talking is truly pompus. He's a highly educated man who is obviously in love with the sound and style of his dramatic voice.

Here are some of his quotes:

http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/david-berlinski

Good point !

Another difference between Christopher Hitchens and David Berlinski. Hitchens spoke with plain language so that everyone could understand his opinions. Berlinski chose to talk snobby professionally oriented language that made it difficult for the non-professional to clearly understand. That's ego that weakens his speech.

BBB

I think defeat was inevitable after Hitchens established totalitarianism as "theocratic". A second point he stressed (one I use myself) is that the burden of persuasion rests on the shoulders of "believers". The assumption of "rhetorical equality" by believers is a simplistic conceit.

I was comfortable with Hitchen's reasoning because I don't strongly object to spirituality, but I do strongly dislike dogma. It's dogma that is so destructive in human history.

BBB

I love it! I love it! Matter, time and absolute chance did it all! Everything in life & time requires creation & manufacture - except the big enchilada of the vast universe! Methinks it's time & past time to dispense with the hypothesis of meg-evolution. Life arising from non-living matter has never been observed, nor produced in a lab. Evolutionists' vety own law of biogenesis, demonstrated by Pasteur, pronounces it as impossible. Further the second law of thermo. precludes spontaneous production of complex organic molecules (proteins, DNA, RNA) without prior blueprint & mechanism to convert free energy into a usable form. Even the fossil record lacks genuine transitions between species that evolution so desperately requires.And what scientist, pray tell, has come up with a plausible way for the qualitatively new genetic coding needed for new organs to come into being spontaneously? Why assist in the indoctrination of searching rational individuals by the myth of secular humanism? Boogie down, Christopher, boogie down! Dinesh DeSouza, if not Berlinski, had your number. DeSouza - 1; Hitch - 0.
Non-violently yours, Arthur Durnan.

I rarely follow any publicised debates on atheism/religion. Too much of an air of carnival about it.

It sure took a lot of words to demonstrate your ignorance.

BBB

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.”

Albert Einstein

I suggest you watch NOVA's wonderful program:

What Darwin Never Knew

One hundred and fifty years later, scientists decode nature's greatest mysteries—a two-hour special. Aired December 29, 2009 on PBS.

Watch What Darwin Never Knew

Aired December 29, 2009 on PBS.
Program Description

Earth teems with a staggering variety of animals, including 9,000 kinds of birds, 28,000 types of fish, and more than 350,000 species of beetles. What explains this explosion of living creatures—1.4 million different species discovered so far, with perhaps another 50 million to go? The source of life's endless forms was a profound mystery until Charles Darwin brought forth his revolutionary idea of natural selection. But Darwin's radical insights raised as many questions as they answered. What actually drives evolution and turns one species into another? To what degree do different animals rely on the same genetic toolkit? And how did we evolve?

"What Darwin Never Knew" offers answers to riddles that Darwin couldn't explain. Breakthroughs in a brand-new science—nicknamed "evo devo"—are linking the enigmas of evolution to another of nature's great mysteries, the development of the embryo. NOVA takes viewers on a journey from the Galapagos Islands to the Arctic, and from the explosion of animal forms half a billion years ago to the research labs of today. Scientists are finally beginning to crack nature's biggest secrets at the genetic level. The results are confirming the brilliance of Darwin's insights while revealing clues to life's breathtaking diversity in ways the great naturalist could scarcely have imagined.

Laboratory produced "life" looks pretty close. (Look up Prigogine). And if it occurs, the believers will no doubt play the game of saying it was still produced by "God" through "his own creation" man. Indeed it would prove for them that "man was created in God's image". Good game !

But the "debate" (ho ho) about the authorship of science misses Hitchen's and Harris's central point about the potential perniciousness of the sociopathic aspects of religionists equipped with modern weapons. Given the bundling and wasteful incompetence of their hypothetical creator hitherto, believers need to be worried what the idiot will get up to in the future.

You raise your voice when you should reinforce your agument, kind sir. With bloopers like yours, who needs catastrophes? Be sure to watch Evangelical Dinesh DeSouza VS self-styled "atheist" Hitchens, he who wants us to know two things: (1) God does not exist; and (2) Hitchens definitely hates this non-existent God! Even Hitchen's very brother, Peter, evidently smiles at such folly & recently penned an excellent article calling Chris's personal conclusions into serious question, even wrenchingly funny!

Want to buy my latest bumper-sticker? "Roses are red, Violents are blue; I'm schizophrenic, And so am I!" It even beats "Kennedy For Lifeguard!", yes?

Non-violently yours,
Arthur Durnan.

Here is the only serious question. Can religious moderates have any jurisdiction over religious fanatics ? What's your answer ?

Thanx, thanx, but you bleat in with a self-serving irrelevancy, which, of course, I make it a fastidious point to ignore. With Obama at his lowest standing yet, what, 43% - doesn't THAT grab you slightly?! - why would the world spend any time re a lame-headed query about some ultra-religious wing-nuts one way or another any more than, say, agnostics (who say there MAY be a Creator-God) VS self-concocted "atheists" (who blurt out loud, "There is NO God, and I surely hate Him!"? Hmm. 2 good 2 miss, right?

You don't get it do you.

Atheist's simply have no use for a "god concept". They are faced with the problem of dealing with the increasingly dangerous heavy users.