Christopher Hitchens Illustrated Videos
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
Comments
Full video of the debate.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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."
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.
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.
Furthermore, if the Bible is "true," then which version/translation is true? What about the countless "apocryphal" texts?
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. 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? 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.
If you really think the story of Noah's ark is true, let me ask you this question. What year was the flood?
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.
And it's spelled empirical.
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.