A dying message from Hitchens an American Atheist

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

For some of us, a god belief is not irrational at all. It's a simple matter of not believing the wrench tightened the bolt without some power behind it.
What's irrationnal about that?

The part where there is no wrench or bolt so discussing the power behind the wrench is absurd. Forcing such an analogy onto life and the universe is unnecessary. The origin of gods comes from anxiety and misunderstanding of natural events (the sun rising, rain falling, wind, etc).

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Huh? Are you saying there is no cause and effect evident in this universe?
Science says there is, it would be irrational to deny that.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Huh? Are you saying there is no cause and effect evident in this universe?

I said nothing of the sort.

I'm saying that knowing the effect, we have no rational reason to credit god as the cause anymore than any other irrational insert. If god n==1; why not 2<=n<=inf? Only irrational thinking leads us to force such a thing to be the cause.

wayne wrote:

Science says there is, it would be irrational to deny that.

I did not deny the relationship. I reject that it's rational to assert the analogy. It's also an over simply analogy that lends itself to any answer to be singular and not so dynamic. I think framing it like this by itself is problematic.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Well, that's where we all disagree. I happen to agree with you, failures art, but I used to be a firm believer and I wasn't insane at the time. Goofy maybe, but I'm still goofy, so that's not relevant. I now do not believe the things I used to, so it goes. I hold no animosity to those that do believe now, with the exception of individuals who want to have power over my own choices, or others choices.

Oh, wait, you didn't say believers were insane but their takes.

Similar but not equal in ardor am I re Set's take on the anti-theist athiests. I don't mind their existing so I can read and toss around what they say, at the same time I think their noise is disproportionate.

Oft times I've liked Hitchens, whether or not I then agreed with him at any one time. I still like him, and his crazy assed mind. There have been a couple of pieces written about Hitchens recently, one by Martin Amis in the Guardian or Observer (I can never keep them straight) and one by whom where (wonder if I saved the link) that remind me why I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy him for his ability to articulate his fervor of the day.

I actually now forget what his dying message to american athiests went on about.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I think you bumped against something important Osso. No matter if I find religious thinking to be mentally irrational or unhealthy, I certainly don't think the idea is married to a feeling of animosity.

I reserve animosity for an individual's actions, not their beliefs.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I edited to clarify..

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

The part where there is no wrench or bolt so discussing the power behind the wrench is absurd. Forcing such an analogy onto life and the universe

You completely deny cause and effect when you said there is no wrench or bolt. You deny a sound analogy, and then claim you didn't.

I think you may be defining the term, god, a bit too closely.
It is no less rational to think there must be an ultimate cause, than it is to think that there is not.
If you mean that it is irrational to believe one can define god beyond that point, then I must agree. But at the most basic scientific level, it is not at all irrational to believe there must be an ultimate cause.

2 Replies

@wayne,

Quote:

But at the most basic scientific level, it is not at all irrational to believe there must be an ultimate cause.

Define ultimate cause and is it one and the same in your view as an intelligent agent being behind the scene.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Quote:
The part where there is no wrench or bolt so discussing the power behind the wrench is absurd. Forcing such an analogy onto life and the universe

You completely deny cause and effect when you said there is no wrench or bolt. You deny a sound analogy, and then claim you didn't.

No. I believe there is a universe, not a wrench and bolt. Why discuss the merits of design and specification of and object for which we know is created (wrenches and bolts) as an analogy for that which there is no evidence for a creator or creators?

Causality does not require that I adhere to such a simple analogy.

wayne wrote:

I think you may be defining the term, god, a bit too closely.

I'm sorry, but "closely" is odd phrasing. I cannot understand what this means. Do you mean my definition is too rigid? If so, I'm willing to look at any manner of diverse rigid definitions, but definition matters. Without a rigid definition, discussion is hardly useful. How can a subject be debated without definition?

If you feel otherwise, please tell me your opinion on if blondes have the most fun. How can you even approach such a question without defining what constitutes blonde, or what defines fun? You may change the definitions of each and the answer may come out different, but you must define them to even approach the question at all.

So if we are to discuss the idea of a god, having a loose and undefined "god" is just avoidance. Put nothing on the table, and you have nothing to loose.

wayne wrote:

It is no less rational to think there must be an ultimate cause, than it is to think that there is not.

I'm fine with that. That's not at issue. It's irrational to assert that clause is a sentient being and that human's have knowledge of this.

wayne wrote:

If you mean that it is irrational to believe one can define god beyond that point, then I must agree.

It's irrational to make any declarations about a being for which there is no proof or observation.

wayne wrote:

But at the most basic scientific level, it is not at all irrational to believe there must be an ultimate cause.

Not at issue.

A
R
T

2 Replies

I don't think this is the place to be talking about Aquinas' First Cause business, or anyone else's, as there are other threads for that - it is about Hitchens and his message to atheists as he is terminal, which to the extent I remember was that we should be aggressive and keep up the good fight, of course not his words.

The point is that most of us don't accept his personal view of the fight.

0 Replies

@failures art,

The ultimate cause concept seem to contain a paradox within by it very nature.

As it something or someone or whatever is the ultimate cause then what is the ultimate cause of the ultimate cause?

Seem you would end up with a never ending series of “ultimate causes”.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

This is the problem with separating church and state, atheists and christians at each others throats. No chance of anyone changing anyone elses opinion. You should be like us, and have an official state religion, Church of England, that way you don't have to believe anything. England is officially the least religious country in the world.

We've just had a census, there's a box for religion which you can leave blank, last time loads of people wrote Jedi so it would be officially classed as a religion. This time I was hoping we could all write **** Off. It would be brilliant if that could be classed as a religion. Would make RE lessons a bit different. That's the place for Religion RE lessons, leave it in the classroom.

I'm not just talking to the Christians, Atheism/Humanism is a religion as well, and it's every bit as annoying as Christianity and the rest. If there's a God we'll find out when we die or not as the case may be. So don't worry about it till then. Good night. Im going to bed

1 Reply

One thing that I have wondered about Hitchens is that he writes as if he has very little tolerance for people who subscribe to myth, and yet many deeply spiritual people believe that Hitchens is a right honorable fellow.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I gather you don't like this place, izzy, but we've exchanged views in prior threads before you showed up.

You're yet one more, re atheisim humanism being a religion. That's your wish.
Most atheists on this earth don't give a ****. It's a failure to believe.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I wouldn't have any idea what an ultimate cause would be like.
Either there is an ultimate cause, or there isn't. I choose to think there is.
I doubt that an ultimate cause would need to fit the human concept of intelligence.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

So if we are to discuss the idea of a god, having a loose and undefined "god" is just avoidance. Put nothing on the table, and you have nothing to loose.

Avoidance of what? Your generalization that god belief is irrational?
My only beef here is with Hitchens' generalizations.

1 Reply

@wayne,

Quote:

Either there is an ultimate cause, or there isn't. I choose to think there is.
I doubt that an ultimate cause would need to fit the human concept of intelligence.

Once more I can not see how an ultimate cause concept does not contain a very large paradox.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The paradox is dependent on the idea that an ultimate cause must conform to human understanding.
If there is no ultimate cause, then it goes on and on forever anyway, we are no more capable of defining that either.

1 Reply

@wayne,

Quote:

The paradox is dependent on the idea that an ultimate cause must conform to human understanding.
If there is no ultimate cause, then it goes on and on forever anyway, we are no more capable of defining that either.

That is my problem with assuming such is the case as it tend to slow down looking for explanations that is indeed within human understandings.

It may be that one day we will hit a wall where human understandings can not break through however to assume that such a wall exist without solid proof is self defeating in every sense.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Quote:
So if we are to discuss the idea of a god, having a loose and undefined "god" is just avoidance. Put nothing on the table, and you have nothing to loose.

Avoidance of what?

In the case of theistic beliefs, the avoidance is in having an idea that can fail. This is a means of maintenance on beliefs. Never loosing becomes the new definition of winning. In other words, you can't loose your chips if you don't ante up. There is a great anxiety in letting gods have logical exercise.

wayne wrote:

Your generalization that god belief is irrational?

Demonstrate a rational alternative construction for a belief in god, otherwise what's your objection? Belief in god(s) is not rational. Belief in a sort-of kind-of wishy-washy can't-be-won't-be defined god is neither rational or irrational. It's not even a belief, it's a thinly veiled desire presented as belief.

wayne wrote:

My only beef here is with Hitchens' generalizations.

Let us discuss details. What specifically do you take objection with?

A
R
T

1 Reply

A dying message from Hitchens an American Atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know