Christopher Hitchens Illustrated Videos

Andrew

Here are two videos I found which are an illustrated companion to Christopher Hitchens' opening statements in his debate with Alister McGrath in October 2007. They are brilliant and I thought I would share them.
CYaQpRZJl18
zkHuvErbpd0

Starfox

Bravo. That was a great find.
Full video of the debate.

...

Oh wow, those are amazing indeed. Thanks.

Solo

Thank you so much for posting those. They are amazing.

starflyer3000

I realize that these are just introductions, but does anyone else notice that he makes a lot of generalizations, assuming that all religious people believe a certain way or would respond to his criticisms in a certain way? These seem to be a classic example of the straw man. I think a lot of his criticisms may be valid, but I don't particularly like his manner of argument.

Apreche

I realize that these are just introductions, but does anyone else notice that he makesa lotof generalizations, assuming that all religious people believe a certain way or would respond to his criticisms in a certain way? These seem to be a classic example of the straw man. I think a lot of his criticisms may be valid, but I don't particularly like his manner of argument.

I don't think he's assuming all religious people have the same beliefs. He is simply arguing against the canon belief structure of the world's 3 major religions. You may think you are a Christian, but if your religious beliefs don't line up with what he's saying, then you aren't really. The things he is arguing against, mostly forgiveness of sins by punishing someone else and a totalitarian celestial regime, are the fundamental tenets of those faiths. If you don't believe those things, then you aren't what religion you think you are.

Rym

If you don't believe those things, then you aren't what religion you think you are.

That's actually an important point. A lot of people say they're "Protestant" or "Catholic" or "Methodist," but how many of them know what specifically those words mean? Do they really understand and believe everything that those faiths by definition entail? If the answer is no, then why are they members of said faith? (Of course, an exception can easily be granted for people who are members of a church yet actively oppose what they do not accept as true, but that's another discussion entirely).

A lot of people call themselves "Christian," yet have very little understanding of what christians actually are. Many, when confronted with a related belief they find distasteful, simply back out with a no true Scotsman instead of seriously considering the ramifications of their faith. If you don't believe what the definition of your faith states is true, then why even associate with the faith? Why not simply be spiritual/philosophical/whatever on your own?

If I join the "green is awesome" club, but I don't like green particularly, I've probably made a poor decision. Better to join the "blue is better" club, which actually reflects my feelings, than to claim falsely that I'm a greenie.

starflyer3000

I don't think he's assuming all religious people have the same beliefs. He is simply arguing against the canon belief structure of the world's 3 major religions. You may think you are a Christian, but if your religious beliefs don't line up with what he's saying, then you aren't really. The things he is arguing against, mostly forgiveness of sins by punishing someone else and a totalitarian celestial regime, are the fundamental tenets of those faiths. If you don't believe those things, then you aren't what religion you think you are.

His arguments about the crucifixion and nature of a "God-created" universe weren't what I really had a problem with; that is, while I disagree with where he takes those ideas (particularly the idea that totalitarian regimes are derived from it), what I really had a problem with is the assumption he makes that says that adults who say they are Christians actually believe that the Bible is myth and legend, justifying their teaching of it by saying it brings morality. He then goes on to say that by teaching these stories to children as facts, but believing them to be false, Christian adults are knowingly lying to their children. This assumption is fundamental to the argument he makes throughout the video, and he references it several times. I understand where he gets these ideas; there are a lot of Christian apologists (especially those of a relativist slant) who have tried to pony-up to secularists by stating, "Well, we don't really believe in the Genesis creation, Noah's ark, the bodily resurrection, etc." However, he argues from the standpoint that that view is a majority view and then attacks it.

starflyer3000

If you don't believe those things, then you aren't what religion you think you are.

That's actually an important point. A lot of people say they're "Protestant" or "Catholic" or "Methodist," but how many of them know what specifically those words mean? Do they really understand and believe everything that those faiths by definition entail? If the answer is no, then why are they members of said faith? (Of course, an exception can easily be granted for people who are members of a church yet actively oppose what they do not accept as true, but that's another discussion entirely).

A lot of people call themselves "Christian," yet have very little understanding of what christians actually are. Many, when confronted with a related belief they find distasteful, simply back out with ano true Scotsmaninstead of seriously considering the ramifications of their faith.

I actually agree entirely with this idea. I have often wondered why someone who says they are a Christian would then deny the fundamentals of that faith. A could example of this is the episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, who has made a career out of basically saying most of what happens in the Bible (particularly the life of Jesus upon which the Christian faith is founded) isn't factually true, but is somehow metaphorically true. I understand why Hitchens would pick such a viewpoint to attack; people like Spong remind me of kids who would turn on their friends to seem cool to the popular clique, but then get humiliated by that clique.

Rym

what I really had a problem with is the assumption he makes that says that adults who say they are Christians actually believe that the Bible is myth and legend

If they don't, then what's the point of being a "Christian" in the first place?

He then goes on to say that by teaching these stories to children as facts, but believing them to be false, Christian adults are knowingly lying to their children.

The alternative is that they believe these legends are literal truth. I don't think I need to point out what's wrong with that.

hristian adults are knowingly lying to their children

They're either lying, or they're spreading a lie they believe.

However, he argues from the standpoint that that view is a majority view and then attacks it.

That's because that position is the MOST rational religious view. The alternative (that they all actually and fully believe), where it to be true, is far more frightening to me, but also far easier to argue against, and thus not really worth debating in a setting like this.

Eryn

Just wanted to pipe in that one of the things I remember most strongly from my years in "religious" junior high and high school (they were part of the so-called Catholic district, but neither school seemed particularly Catholic, just vaguely Catho-christian-whatnot) was a unit in my junior high Religion class that was called Contextualism vs. Fundamentalism. It basically taught that contextualism was "the bible stories are mostly myth/legend (except for Jesus stuff! hail the Son of the Lord!), but we should still take the implied lessons from those stories and base our faith around the more vague 'God is out there and he loves you'" side of things, and that fundamentalism was "everything in the bible is literally true, because God wrote it, so it must be true." The major point of that unit was essentially "fundamentalism bad, contextualism good." We even got to watch the old black and white Inherit the Wind to drive that point home, which was probably the best part of that class (go Henry Drummond!).

But this "contextualism" view is exactly the kind of thing that Hitchens is attacking in this video. It didn't make much sense to me then which beliefs we were supposed to disregard as myth and which we were supposed to take to heart, and it made even less sense the more time I spent in that school and high school afterward. I'm glad that our school was at least not a totally whackjob religious school like so many Catho-christian schools are. However, all those Religion classes were still painful to go through as an atheist, mainly because I didn't have the guts or the speed of verbal wit to argue with the teachers. I wish that back then, I had had the kind of words Hitchens has for these vague "contextualism" beliefs that the school was teaching.

starflyer3000

That's because that position is the MOST rational religious view. The alternative (that they all actually and fully believe), where it to be true, is far more frightening to me, but also far easier to argue against, and thus not really worth debating in a setting like this.

This kind of statement is part of the reason I very rarely debate religious issues online anymore. (I'm not putting down your statement, by the way, but it illustrates a point.) The prime issue in any atheist/theist debate is the existence of God, but instead of ever actually getting to the heart of the matter, most debates dance around it, with both sides arguing back and forth about points that they cannot ever reach a conclusion on. Every belief in Christianity is predicated on the existence of the Christian God, but the point of being an atheist is a lack of belief in a god. Thus, when you say that contextualism (thanks Tenchi Kaze for the technical term!) is "the MOST rational religious view," that statement is from the world view that God does not (or might as well not) exist. I can't even address the question further without dealing with that fundamental disagreement first, and that's the prime reason why most religious/secular debates of that sort devolve into flamewars, etc.

I'm definitely going to watch the full video that Starfox linked to, just to see what all Hitchens' and McGrath get into. Should be interesting.

Sparkybuzzed

I'm not really sure where he gets the "forgive sin by punishing someone else" bit. I'm Catholic and we do a lot of self-punishing over here.

On a semi-related note, I just got back from Italy. The Vatican was truly awe-inspiring. And standing next to Peter's tomb (not metaphorically...the Vatican stands on the grounds of Nero's circus where a Jewish man named Peter who preached about Jesus was crucified upside-down and the altar stands over a grave where archaeologists found bones - and a large necropolis - and the inscription "Peter is Here" in Greek Cited ) was a moving experience. I know I'm in the vast minority here, but being in St. Peter's Square for the Pope's blessing was moving. And I get a +1 to Hit and to Saves!

Andrew

I'm not really sure where he gets the "forgive sin by punishing someone else" bit.

Isn't that the central tenet of Christianity? Jesus "died" for our sins?

snipejaeg

Out of curiosity (and in the name of equal time and context) I went looking for the full debate. You can find it here. The video's a beast (1 hour 41 min) so I haven't watched it yet, beyond making sure it's the same debate.

starflyer3000

I'm not really sure where he gets the "forgive sin by punishing someone else" bit.

Isn't that the central tenet of Christianity? Jesus "died" for our sins?

The issue here is with Hitchens' particular interpretation. The way he puts it in the video makes it sound like Jesus was arbitrarily punished and that therefore we were absolved of all responsibility. He conveniently ignores the idea that Jesus made a choice to stand-in for us (perspective changes a lot) and while I'm sure there are Christians who think that because of the Crucifixion that there are no longer consequences for their actions, this idea is totally not biblical. Paul specifically addresses exactly this concern in his writings and makes it clear that our responsibility for our actions continues. This is another example where I think Hitchens mischaracterizes the Christian view in order to make it easier to attack.

Starfox

Ha! Backreading!

Andrew

He conveniently ignores the idea that Jesus made a choice to stand-in for us (perspective changes a lot) and while I'm sure there are Christians who think that because of the Crucifixion that there are no longer consequences for their actions, this idea is totally not biblical.

I don't think it really matters what Jesus' intentions were. How does the death of a being absolve others of their "sins"? Also, I'm pretty sure that as long as you earnestly believe Jesus is Christ, you are absolved of your sins. Are there are requirements for absolution that I am not aware of in the Bible? If so, please let me know.

starflyer3000

He conveniently ignores the idea that Jesus made a choice to stand-in for us (perspective changes a lot) and while I'm sure there are Christians who think that because of the Crucifixion that there are no longer consequences for their actions, this idea is totally not biblical.

I don't think it really matters what Jesus' intentions were. How does the death of a being absolve others of their "sins"? Also, I'm pretty sure that as long as you earnestly believe Jesus is Christ, you are absolved of your sins. Are there are requirements for absolution that I am not aware of in the Bible? If so, please let me know.

The intention matters because Hitchens' directly relates the ideas of Jesus and the scapegoat. While the scapegoat is used as an analogy for Jesus' crucifixion, we all know that all analogies break down; they're imperfect. Hitchens, however, treats the analogy as if it were entirely true, making a big point about the fact that a goat is innocent and has no choice whatsoever in the matter. Having a choice makes a huge difference when we evaluate actions, and Jesus' actions cannot be fairly evaluated without considering choice.

Furthermore, when Hitchens talks about absolution, he alludes to the idea that some believe we are absolved of all responsibility here on earth; that it actually creates an incentive to continue doing wrong. My point is that while there are some who choose to live this way, biblical teaching clearly does nothing of the sort. For example, if someone commits a crime, while God may forgive them if they ask, nowhere is it suggested that their responsibility here on earth is absolved; their debt to society and to their victims is not taken away. However, this is what Hitchens suggests and what I was arguing against in my post. Now I don't know exactly how the Catholic Church deals with absolution, but included in the idea of "earnestly believ[ing] Jesus is Christ" is the crucial idea of repentance; that is, a turning away from sin. Jesus forgives the woman accused of adultery, but He doesn't stop there; He specifically tells her to "go and sin no more." Repentance was a central part of Jesus' message and tied directly with absolution. Again, Hitchens ignores this idea because it's easier to attack "Christianity lets you do horrible things and get away with it."

Starfox

You're missing Hitchens' point. He is saying that punishing another for your actions does not change the fact that they were your actions. You still did it.

Apreche

You're missing Hitchens' point. He is saying that punishing another for your actions does not change the fact that they wereyouractions. You still did it.

Exactly. The central belief of Christianity is that you can wash your sins away simply by passing them off onto Jesus. If you do not believe this, you are not Christian.

Let me try to show you the train of logic that breaks down here.

Person A says they are Christian.
Hitchens says that Christian's believe in X, which they do.
Hitchens says that X is a bad thing to believe.
Person A says well, you're wrong because I don't believe X.

Well, person A has not presented any arguments to debate the point that believing in X is bad. They are in fact agreeing that believing in X is bad. They are simply denying that they believe in X. However, believing in X is necessary to be called a Christian. The logical flaw is that person A thinks they are Christian when they are not.

Not believing that beating the shit out of Jesus can take away your sins and calling yourself a christian is like believing in 5 gods and calling yourself a Jew. It's like calling yourself a Scientologists, but believing Hubbard was the most evil person to ever live, and everything he said was wrong.

am_dragon

I'm very busy, so I don't really have time to debate this in depth, but here comes the Christian viewpoint.
I believe that the Bible is not only true, it is the inspired word of God handed down to be passed on through the ages.
I believe in the fall of man, the virgin birth, the death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you steal something you have to deal with the guilt. If you are caught you must pay for your crime. You can give back the item you stole in full and pay restitution. Do you still have the guilt? Most people would say yes, you did something wrong and you know it.

If someone commits a sin, it is their sin and they have to live with it. In the early books of the Bible there are rules to atone for your sins. The world became so sinful and corrupt that nothing on Earth would atone for the sins. God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, to serve as the ultimate sacrifice. His death paid the price for any sins anyone would commit, so long as they believed that Jesus was the literal Son of God and gave Himself for us. Think about just this part, Christian or not. You commit a crime, are caught, and the punishment would dramatically alter your life. Then someone walks up and says "I got this one bro." and you walk away free of any obligation due to your crime, how would you feel towards the person that "saved" you? Would you go out and commit the crime again? Would you want to repay that person for their gift?

I take issue with a couple things in the first video. I know many Christians that would not tell you Noah's Ark was a myth. Most Christians I know believe in the virgin birth. Also I'm getting a little tired of the "You only do good to evade punishment." garbage (it's at 4:40 in the first video). That is not how Christians should think. If I do good it is because I owe a debt to Jesus and the only thing I can do to repay the debt is to live honestly, truthfully, and be the best person I can.

As far as the age of the universe goes, it's irrelevant. It's like a story problem, Bob has 4 apples, Julie has 3 apples, Julie's shirt 100,000 years old. How many apples are there? It doesn't make one bit of difference to my faith how old the the Earth is or appears to be. Am I dodging the issue? If the Earth is 6000, or 600,000,000 years old it does not disprove the existence of God. It only proves to me that God is more awesome than we can comprehend.

Rym

I know many Christians that would not tell you Noah's Ark was a myth.

Do you believe that Noah's ark is a myth?

I believe that the Bible is not only true

I don't exactly wish to sound rude, but I'll admit that I can not in good faith claim to respect the intelligence of a person who honestly believes that the mystical encounters and miracles of the bible actually happened...

Furthermore, if the Bible is "true," then which version/translation is true? What about the countless "apocryphal" texts?

am_dragon

Noah's Ark is not a myth.

I don't exactly wish to sound rude, but I'll admit that I can not in good faith claim to respect the intelligence of a person who honestly believes that the mystical encounters and miracles of the bible actually happened...

Respecting my beliefs or my intelligence isn't a requirement. Listen to the 2nd video again, 30 seconds in a refrence is made to a Francis Collins. Do you respect his intelligence? Does that fact that he is a Christian invalidate his work?

Furthermore, if the Bible is "true," then which version/translation is true? What about the countless "apocryphal" texts?

The apocryphal texts do not contain much relevant information to the Jewish or Christian faith. I do not know if these where stories handed down or also part of the inspired word. Very interesting material but many thousands of people more qualified than I believe that they do not have a place in the Bible. From the research I have done, the New King James, New International Version, and the New Living Translation bibles in the English language contain the books and translations that most accurately represent the original texts. I'm sure there are others that are just a good. I have a NKJV Life Application bible it describes how we can apply lessons to our lives. I also have a NKJV study bible deals more with the the meanings and various translations of each part of the text.

Andrew

Think about just this part, Christian or not. You commit a crime, are caught, and the punishment would dramatically alter your life. Then someone walks up and says "I got this one bro." and you walk away free of any obligation due to your crime, how would you feel towards the person that "saved" you? Would you go out and commit the crime again? Would you want to repay that person for their gift?

If you knew that they would always take the fall for you, why wouldn't you do it again? Besides, just because someone took the fall for you, that doesn't forgive you for your crimes. The idea that somehow you are free from personal responsibility of your actions because someone took the blame is not a moral basis for ethics.

Personally, I would rather pay for my crime myself than torture and murder an innocent person because of my wrong doing. To push off my punishments onto someone else is immoral and unethical.

If I do good it is because I owe a debt to Jesus and the only thing I can do to repay the debt is to live honestly, truthfully, and be the best person I can.

So I don't even have a choice in whether I would allow Jesus to take the fall? I am forced to either accept this immoral punishment of him for my wrongdoings or burn in an eternal fire. No one ever asked for my opinion on the matter nor did I have a choice in the situation. It is indeed an almost totalitarian system to which the Christian faith ascribes us to, much like Hitchens said. Also, it seems hypocritical that all it takes to forgive the sins of an entire race is for Jesus to just die and resurrect three days later whereas if I want to pay for my sins myself I have to die and burn in eternal fire, no matter how insignificant my sins were. Why does Jesus get such an easy break?

Noah's Ark is not a myth.

Are you serious? You honestly believe that every single species of the planet was placed into a wooden boat so your god could flood the entire earth when there is no geological evidence that a flood on that scale ever took place? Wow.

Apreche

Noah's Ark is not a myth.

Yes it is. If you believe otherwise, I can have no respect for you. You are truly insane. A man did not put two of every single animal ever on a wooden boat that was built without modern boat making facilities. Geological evidence contradicts the idea that there was ever a great flood. If a single man named Noah was truly the ancestor of all humans, which he would be if the story of the ark is not myth, then we would see evidence of this in the human genome. We do not. In fact all evidence we have clearly contradicts this being the case. We would also see evidence that every animal species on earth has ancestors spawning from a single geographic location, the landing place of the ark after the flood. Seeing as there are fossils on every single continent from all periods in history going back to dinosaur times and before, this is clearly not the case.

If you really think the story of Noah's ark is true, let me ask you this question. What year was the flood?

am_dragon

There is evidence of a flood, there are stories about it in several cultures. There is evidence of a flood that created the Black Sea. The exact year doesn't matter. I am Christian and I choose to believe.

You say you disrespect me as a person for my religious views. I am very sorry that you have no religious tolerance. That is fairly large prejudice to carry with you. If none of it is true why do you spend so much time trying to debunk it? Why not just go on and never think about it again? As I've stated in another thread, you are not going to get absolute proof. You should be agnostic because the choice to believe in nothing is just as fanciful as the choice to believe in God.

I don't have any reason to insult you even though I flat out disagree with you religious beliefs. Do you expect that every one around you must absolutely agree with you?

I'm not upset, I'm not offended, Atheist I've encountered often have little or no tolerance for religious views of any type. I don't agree with everything you say, I don't disrespect you for your views I simply understand that the disagreement exists and go on. If you truly have no respect for me I'll leave, because there is no point wasting my views and ideas here.

Starfox

There is evidence of a flood, there are stories about it in several cultures.

There are stories about dragons in several cultures as well. That doesn't make them real.

There is evidence of a flood that created the Black Sea.

Show us, please. Also, if the Black Sea was created by a flood, that does not necessarily imply the entire world was flooded.

As I've stated in another thread, you are not going to get absolute proof.

In this case, you are:

we would see evidence of this in the human genome. We do not...

We would also see evidence that every animal species on earth has ancestors spawning from a single geographic location, the landing place of the ark after the flood. Seeing as there are fossils on every single continent from all periods in history going back to dinosaur times and before, this is clearly not the case.

You should be agnostic because the choice to believe in nothing is just as fanciful as the choice to believe in God.

Wrong. Belief in no God: some evidence. Belief in God: no evidence.

Do you expect that every one around you must absolutely agree with you?

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

am_dragon

If there were even "some" proof as you say then where is it? You are telling me you can say without a doubt that God does not exist? You might want to get a hold of Victor J. Stenger because in his book he can only point to theories that might deny the existence of God. Some proof is proof, there is no imperical unrefined evidence that God does not exist and several well known outspoken Atheist agree with me.

Starfox

Look at my post. Look at it. Did I say there was proof of the non-existence of God? No. I said some evidence. Big difference. Proving the non-existence of God is impossible, and I never said I could. Read it again before you start attacking it.

And it's spelled empirical.

Apreche

As for being intolerant of beliefs, it is perfectly OK to be intolerant of people because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise. You see, when someone is racist, they are discriminating against people because of characteristics of those people that are not under their control. Someone doesn't decide to have non-white skin. Also, the color of someone's skin has no relation to the content of their character as a human being. Likewise, let's say somebody is homosexual, or transsexual. Even though that may be something they decided on, it also has no relation to the content of their character. People can be good, bad, respectable, worthwhile, or terrible completely regardless of something like gender, race, or sexual orientation.

However, religious beliefs are both something that are a decision of the person holding them, and they also expose the content of someone's character. If someone came up to you and told you they really and truly believe that magic pixies are harassing them, you would think they were insane, and rightly so. It is no different if someone claims that an old man built a giant boat to carry every animal as a magic flood wiped out everything on earth.

Yes, there are some people who have done great things regardless of their religious beliefs. You mention Francis Collins, that's a good example. I feel the same way about Francis Collins that I feel about Mike Tyson. I highly respect Mike Tyson's skill and career as a fighter. In all other ways, he is a terrible and despicable human being. I respect the genetics work of Collins, but as a human being, he is a hypocritical nut.

The following is copied from here. This clearly explains why it is not OK to believe in god just because it can't be disproven. You would think the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be enough, but apparently we need tartan penguins as well.

I do not believe in tartan penguins.

I have no direct experience with penguins and I am no zoologist, but I know a few (zoologists, not penguins) and I understand a fair range of the basic principles that might affect such matters (penguins, not zoologists). I love the idea of a tartan penguin, don’t get me wrong; nothing would make me happier than to see a waddling little butler sprucing the Antarctic up a little with a nice Burnet plaid.

However, I do not believe in tartan penguins and, yes, that makes me a little sad.

The reasons for my incredulity are myriad. First and foremost, I have never seen a tartan penguin. I realise that I have never seen a whole host of things in which I do believe, but first hand sensory experience is my first line of reasoning. It is not, however, the only line of reasoning. Were I to see a tartan penguin, my first act would be to fetch someone else, preferably someone I trust, and to ask them if they could also see said dapper bird. I would wish to inspect it closely, to check it for the smell of drying paint, to look for zippers and, in extremis, to have my own blood-work done to ensure that I was not under the influence of any hallucinogenic substance. If after all that I still had a tartan penguin, then I would begin seriously to believe in it.

I cannot prove that they do not exist, however. I might spend a lifetime in the Antarctic collecting penguins and even if (as I confidently predict) none of them were tartan in colouration, I could not say for certain that there would not be one just behind the next rock.

If someone were to come to me and claim that they had such a bird, well, what a wonder! Of course I would like to see it! All that would be required to prove that the thing exists would be for that person to bring that bird forward.

They might provide photographs, but those could be faked. They might provide a host of witnesses, but they could all be mistaken, paid, mad or just up for a giggle. However, were they to bring me one – just one – example of a genuinely tartan penguin – one which remained a tartan penguin under the conditions given above – then I would believe in it. All my previous statements would be negated, I would humbly climb down and admit to the world that, in fact, there’s a Black-Watch clan aquatic bird in our midst.

I can never, ever, prove beyond doubt that there is no such thing, but everything I do know about evolution, energy conservation, the food chain, camouflage and entropy (and other things besides), backed up by the rigorously documented work and experimentation of a great number of people who are all cleverer than I, tells me that a naturally tartan penguin is simply not in the cards. The weight of evidence against it is overwhelming.

But imagine when someone claims that they have found a whole community of such things! Naturally, I would find myself sceptical of the claim, given the weight of evidence on my side. However, all that this person would have to do to utterly destroy my point of view and prove their own would be to produce one single, solitary example of the genus. That’s all.

But then the excuses would start; the penguins do not like to travel (fair enough, I’ll go to them) – the penguins are only tartan every first Tuesday of the month and it’s Wednesday 4th (right! I am prepared to wait 30 days to see this bird) – the penguin is only tartan when it’s not observed...

...it doesn’t take long before the excuses become unbelievable. Even when offered $1 million to provide any concrete evidence of the tartan penguin, no one can produce it.

Therefore, I am afraid, I still do not believe in tartan penguins. All I ask to prove me wrong is one simple example, just one, to counter the overwhelming weight of evidence that backs up my position; yet no one will produce it.

Perhaps you can see what I’m driving at?