Christopher Hitchens: God is Not Great

ID:34963
 
Sep 19 2007, 12:40 pm
A fascinating read...

http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/ 0446579807/

And to give you a snippet of his feelings on the subject, here's a couple of YouTube vids from Fox News:


Sep 19 2007, 1:15 pm
"To believe that energy came before man is a larger leap-of-faith in my opinion." (or whatever he said)

Yea, he hasn't read anything at all about science, apparently.
Sep 19 2007, 1:23 pm
Fox News : Fair, Balanced, Unedited
::
Bin Laden : Flag Waving American.

(Gotta love analogies.)
Sep 19 2007, 1:28 pm
I read that book (got it as an audio book from Audible) and enjoyed it. It was well worth the price. It's a great read, and Christopher Hitchens brings an interesting point of view to the whole thing. To me, it feels almost like a grandfather telling me a story. There's an interesting debate with Hitchens-v-Al Sharpton. It's interesting, and stays very civil.
Sep 19 2007, 2:29 pm
That guy is the most utterly obnoxious atheist, who is just generally a jerk and doesn't make points, I think I've ever seen.

PIF you misquoted:

"To believe that energy came out of nothing, is a larger leap of faith in my opinion."
Sep 19 2007, 3:26 pm
My favorite Hitchens line is about Jerry Falwell:

"If you gave Falwell an enema, he could be buried in a matchbox."
Sep 19 2007, 3:32 pm
Vandit wrote:
PIF you misquoted:

"To believe that energy came out of nothing, is a larger leap of faith in my opinion."

Yea, I knew I had it off, but I wasn't going to go back through the video to get it right. Regardless, the laws of physics don't allow energy to be created or destroyed, so it couldn't have been produced from nothing.
Sep 19 2007, 4:04 pm
But the unknown doesn't mean god. Using an unknown to explain an unknown is just a bad idea.

Hitchens doesn't do well in interviews. Mostly because he loves to go into interviews with people are are directly opposed to his viewpoint, so any mediation is bias, so he tries to compensate, but it makes him come off as a jerk, but really it's the host thats the jerk, not letting him finish his point before they start spouting what they believe. His book is nice because he is able to get it all out, uninterrupted. He can talk up a storm, so it's hard to make him fit in 30 second clips like most interviewer like.
Sep 19 2007, 5:51 pm
There is a god, and we are all led by his great noodly appendages.


btw, there is no possible way to disprove the existance of a god.
Sep 19 2007, 6:05 pm
s/god/Santa Claus/g

So "there is no possible way to disprove the existance of god" becomes "there is no possible way to disprove the existance of Santa Claus".

And Santa's noodly appendages... Mmmm
Sep 19 2007, 6:07 pm
Whenever I see an article about the recent glut of atheist apologetics, I'm reminded of a quote from James Lileks. (He wasn't writing about evangelical atheism per se, but he was in the ballpark.)

'There’s a clinical psychological term for all this, and it’s “Pissed at Daddy.”'
Sep 19 2007, 6:20 pm
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen F Roberts
Sep 19 2007, 6:29 pm
Bootyboy wrote:
So "there is no possible way to disprove the existance of god" becomes "there is no possible way to disprove the existance of Santa Claus".

But I can prove that there isn't a Santa Claus. For starters no one even seriously makes the claim that he's real. Everyone who participates will admit (although not near children) that it's make believe.

Also I think saying there is no way to disprove the existence of God is a bit much. Saying there is no way to disprove the existence of something in a god-like role is true, but when it comes to specific gods
there are plenty of ways to disprove them. Especially the older ones where they've used their god to explain something, then science has come along and given us a definitive answer that is completely different.
A lot of religious people will blow that off as a misunderstanding, a metaphor, or outright deny the evidence, but that's only cheapening the idea of god and the credibility of your religions teachings. If you're willing to accept that the Bible was just using a metaphor in one area, you can't ask that the other outstanding claims be taken at face value.
Sep 19 2007, 6:35 pm
But I can prove that there isn't a Santa Claus.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Sep 20 2007, 5:01 am
Jp wrote:
Gughunter wrote:
Whenever I see an article about the recent glut of atheist apologetics, I'm reminded of a quote from James Lileks. (He wasn't writing about evangelical atheism per se, but he was in the ballpark.)

'There’s a clinical psychological term for all this, and it’s “Pissed at Daddy.”'

Trying to make an argument in the public arena is 'evangelical'?

Also, that is incredibly insulting. I know it was intended to be, but seriously Gug, act your age.


Are you honestly scolding someone for being insulting and insensitive to feelings? You?