Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 23, 2009 1:23 PM

He spends rather too long worrying about how long we have lived, considering that it's a somewhat arbitrary distinction.

Um, yeah, as to god intervening, we don't have to go back that long to say that he's not done so with any of his purported benevolence. Surely the Holocaust casts doubt upon the whole revelation to the Jews, for example.

He's really putting the ancient Hebrews down more than truth supports, as they were beneficiaries of the Egyptian civilization, which in fact controlled Palestine at times.

Glen D
http://electricconsciousness.tripod.com

Posted by: Bostonian | October 23, 2009 1:34 PM

It's funny that he doesn't have to exaggerate at all to display the absurdity underlying the Abrahamic religions.

Posted by: Spud | October 23, 2009 1:37 PM

When the camera cuts to the audience, while most people are laughing away, anybody else notice a couple of decidedly stony-faced, arm-folded guys in the front row? Either they're theists, or they just thought God Is Not Great a distinct lapse from Letters to a Young Contrarian.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | October 23, 2009 2:00 PM

#5

"I thought the "chloroform in print" remark was about The Book of Mormon."

Nah!...Bible, got to be!

Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, bit like the bible but with flying saucers..Planets... and Dan Dare!

Posted by: Die Anyway | October 23, 2009 2:08 PM

Keep 'em coming PZ. I needed a lunchtime laugh amidst all of the sordid stuff (branded baby, Muslim father running over daughter, egotistical football player). Now back to work.

Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway

Posted by: Satcomguy | October 23, 2009 2:48 PM

That was the first time I'd seen Hitchens at a podium...he reminded me a bit of Ricky Gervais. Good stuff!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 23, 2009 2:56 PM

At least theists (especially Christians) have an excuse for sharing their views. - Lion IRC

Right, trying to cram them down everyone else's throat.

Which just so happens to tie in nicely with why atheists want to share their views. To keep the theists from doing just that.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 23, 2009 2:58 PM

One of the reasons at least.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 23, 2009 3:02 PM

I live in Melbourne and would love to go to the convention except I'm not going to pay for content which is given away for free on the internet

I'm glad you informed us of this.
Just don't love it enough then, hey? ;)

Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 23, 2009 3:22 PM

I too have watched nearly every shred of Hitchens "versus" content on YouTube, and while I've heard this part of his bit before, this was the funniest retelling. Lion IRC I think is mostly right, other than the inability to maybe have a short chat with the man after the show. But yes, I am not sure how much new material Hitchens will have inserted. The points make themselves and while new metaphors could be devised, the end results would be the same.

"That was the first time I'd seen Hitchens at a podium...he reminded me a bit of Ricky Gervais. Good stuff!"

??!! If you want more go straight away to YouTube and spend your weekend perusing a wide array of Hitchens' debates, at least half of which are behind podiums. Though, I'm not sure why the podium factor adds intrigue, but hey, whatever floats your ark.

Posted by: Perplexed | October 23, 2009 3:52 PM

I do like this point but have heard it many, many times from him before and I am sure he has other things to say that would be just as interesting and well put, that I am missing out on.

I really should just finish reading his book I suppose, damn the internet it is a never ending distraction.

Posted by: 1984 | October 23, 2009 4:01 PM

The Q & A part of that broadcast was the best.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | October 23, 2009 4:53 PM

It was good but I've heard Hitchens do it before.

Posted by: scooter | October 23, 2009 4:57 PM

Hitchens has been using that particular riff for quite awhile, but he expands it rather nicely for this routine.

Hitchens is a guilty pleasure.

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | October 23, 2009 5:04 PM

Of course, Atheists way back before recorded history began had no fear of earthquakes and shooting stars because they knew all about tectonic plates and meteors. Excuse the sarc, but there's something about Hitchens that makes me want to go back to church in droves; the supremacist attitude towards his ancestral relatives, the way he doesn't miss a beat during his anti-semitic rant when he accuses that particular tribe of 'racism', and where did he learn all about their history? Why, he must believe the Bible!

Posted by: Dahan | October 23, 2009 5:24 PM

Excuse the sarc, but there's something about Hitchens that makes me want to go back to church in droves

So what's stopping you? If you're so weak-minded that not liking an individual who holds the same views as you (supposedly) do on a topic is enough to drive you from that belief, you're an idiot. If you just don't like him, say so and be done.

Posted by: cedgray | October 23, 2009 5:54 PM

Very entertaining.

I liked it when he was right about everything. And funny with it.

Posted by: Kristy | October 23, 2009 6:12 PM

@Lion IRC - Currently, there are no plans to film the Melbourne Atheist Convention and no plans to release it on DVD. If you want to see these speakers, I suggest you pay the very reasonable registration fee and attend the Convention.

Cannold and Adams are not appearing on the same stage. Cannold is part of an all female discussion panel which will also include former Senator Lyn Allison, public education advocate Jane Caro, and Tanya Levin, author of an expose on life inside and out of Hillsong Church. They will not be having 'heated arguments' but providing female perspectives on issues of interest to atheists.

The Convention is not about validation. It's about community, and education, and networking and, importantly, showing the government that Australian atheists can unite in large numbers. That's an important message to send when our biggest weakness is our lack of political clout. Christians have power, not because of their numbers, but because they are organized.

We have excellent 'excuses' for sharing our views. Elderly people in Australia are hanging themselves because the government, under pressure from the Christian right, will not legalize euthanasia. Gay people cannot marry. Religion is infiltrating the public school system. Billions of tax dollars are sacrificed in religious tax exemptions. Faith-based welfare organizations tell women that having an abortion will give them breast cancer. You think we don't have a good reason to get together and say, "No more!" ?

Posted by: llewelly | October 23, 2009 7:06 PM

Hitchens is mistaken about the Mark Twain quote. That's what Twain wrote of the Book of Mormon:

All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

(From wikiquote, originally in Roughing It, which you can find at gutenberg.org if you want context.)

Mark Twain had a very low opinion of religion, and he probably did write something against Mary Baker Eddy's "Church of Christ, Scientist", but I can't find a specific quote.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 23, 2009 7:32 PM

Jeff D, I can address your three quibbles. On the first point Hitchens doesn't concede this because theists openly admit that the precepts of the religion dictate that certain acts be done for others in order to obtain the ultimate in the afterlife. The point is that while they may be doing good things, they are doing those things in some part, however big or small, to attain heaven. As he says in other debates, atheists cannot be suspected of doing good things under the auspice of an ulterior motive.

On the second point, he has referenced Ghandi and MLK but he does do this quite infrequently, at least in the debates I have seen that have been recorded. Not sure why Ghandi doesn't factor in his dispensation on the subject often, but there you have it.

On the third, Hitchens, for however great his mind otherwise is, mistakenly fudges things from time to time. The most obvious example is when he talks about the range of time humans have walked the Earth. Most often he says 100k/250k years, but I've heard him mis-state it as 75k/150k, and 250k/1 million. If you looked up the philosopher lyric after listening to that event, you'll notice he didn't get all of that right either. He mixed a couple of the names, although he admitted in the audio that he couldn't quite recall it all. Of course, I mis-recall things often myself. I did it just the other day here. He's human...or an ape, as he said.

Al B. Quirky, you as an individual can "go back to church in droves"? Pretty interesting trick. What you say about Hitchens makes no sense to me though. What anti-Semitic rant? Supremacism? Methinks you don't parse things well.

Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2009 8:44 PM

where did he learn all about their history? Why, he must believe the Bible!

And he must believe in God, because he said he intervened 3000 years ago, right?

Moron.

Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2009 8:53 PM

At least theists (especially Christians) have an excuse for sharing their views.

Sure, being assholes is an excuse for acting like assholes.

Posted by: Dreamer | October 23, 2009 9:30 PM

I heard him on Laura Ingraham this morning. Did anyone else catch it? He and that pastor in "Collision" were debating.

Poor, poor Catholic Laura.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | October 24, 2009 12:32 AM

I'm sooo looking forward to the Global Atheist Convention this coming late summer. I'll be ready to rock.

In addition to the convention itself, I'm trying to organise a nice little lead-in event, and I think this is now pretty much nailed down. I look forward to being able to announce it publicly a bit closer to the time.

(And yeah, we usually think of March as autumn in Australia, but early-ish March is frakkin' HOT in Melbourne, and 12-14 March is well before the autumn equinox; the most logical way to categorise that time of year is actually as late summer.)

Posted by: Robert Brown | October 24, 2009 3:15 AM

I went into NYC today to listen to David Berlinski speak at a room in the Empire State Building. I think I was swimming in a sea of his followers. Frankly, the man was extremely unlikeable and pompous. Then again, Hitchens isnt exactly a friendly chap.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 24, 2009 3:58 AM

confirmation bias dimwit @ 51,

The crowd clapped & cheered this description of the Jewish race:
"the most backward, the most barbaric, the most illiterate, the most superstitious, the most savage people that could be found"
..yet ABQ gets called all kinds of idiotic moron for recognizing this as 'anti-semitism'? What is this, 1936?

Did you really not understand the reference to a 2500 year old desert tribe, and are you really projecting this to be a comment on modern day jews?
And please, do go and google the term "race".

Posted by: ostranenie | October 24, 2009 6:34 AM

@Jeff D #27
@BlueIndependent #40

Yes, Hitch muffed that; he should have said what Blue Independent said. Balinese temples *are* cool, and Christian charity work *is* nice. But the religious motivation for both is evil. Sometimes evil produces good. And both institutions would be better off if their religious elements were removed. Religion can produce good, but religion still poisons everything. How can evil produce good? I dunno; maybe: pure evil (religion) + human culture (the non-religious bits) can = mostly good things (art & institutions that are 90% good--aesthetically and morally--but 10% bad--the craven and unfortunate "I'm doing this to avoid hellfire" motivation).

But, given that he must've been asked that a zillion times, and that the questioner went back to this several times, how is it that Hitch didn't have a better answer for him? I'm going with jet-lag.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 24, 2009 11:37 AM

ostranenie, I would correct a couple things. First of all, "pure evil (religion)" is a bit strong. Evil can come from other sources, and religion did not "begat" evil itself. It still muddies the waters though, and can easily cause an evil to result from good intentions, which I think is the effect most worth highlighting. As for his answer, I think it was fine. It wasn't a terribly eloquent answer, but it was sufficient. He made the only point that needed to be made: that for as good as religious apologists want to claim they are in their deeds, there's a bit of a problem with the morality in that they think they are going to get paid at some point for having done so.

To loosely paraphrase a popular sports broadcaster (oddly enough), you shouldn't get extra points for doing something you should already be responsible and good enough to do already. For example, loving your wife. In my region of the country, and perhaps in yours, I fairly regularly see a pickup truck or car with the bumper sticker "I Love My Wife" on it. While this seems like a perfectly acceptable thing to say, is it not a given? Am I supposed to shower you with praise for doing something you're morally and legally supposed to do anyways? Probably not, although it's not necessarily bad to reinforce the good things from time to time.

Posted by: Tom Jones | October 24, 2009 2:11 PM

Thank 'God' for Hitchens! He can drink all day and still chop up the opposition - one drink for me and I'm finished!

Posted by: echidna | October 24, 2009 5:14 PM

Al B. Quirky@59,
Please enlighten us with a comparison of literacy between the Jewish people and the Chinese circa 2500 years ago.

Posted by: John Morales | October 24, 2009 6:46 PM

ABQ:

If he's right about Jews being the most illiterate people on the planet, then God must have written the Bible for someone else, the Chinese perhaps?

Hitchens contrasting the Chinese and Israelite civilisations is a means of showing the absurdity of the Revelation claim, in the context of his larger point regarding the long history of humanity before this putative event (which you don't address).

You're employing this absurd concept too, by assuming the Bible was written by the Biblical god. Heh.

Posted by: Lion IRC | October 25, 2009 2:08 AM

Hi Kirsty,
I am glad to hear that your atheist morals compel you to take a stand against indifference towards the elderly and defending those who support the institution of marriage and standing up for freedom of speech in schools, universities, internet and opposing government interference in the finances of charitable organisations and speaking out against women who try to tell other women what they should OR SHOULD NOT do with their bodies using "bad science".
You and I have values closer than you might imagine.
It is horrible when people pretend to care about a social issue like the elderly when what they are really trying to do is push an "agenda".
Let us hope that there is no such thing as an atheist "agenda" - just a lack of certainty about God.
I was surprised to hear your claim that the Convention wont be recorded and (if you are telling the truth) one can only speculate as to why. I, on the other hand, prefer to let my lamp be seen not covered by a bushel or hidden from view.
$100 per person is not unreasonable however I prefer truth which is FREE.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Rorschach | October 25, 2009 2:24 AM

So who wrote Exodus 34:14-26?

A scribe ?

Gee but you are thick.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 25, 2009 3:39 AM

ABQ,

your ability to completely and consistently miss the point is quite amazing.
And do read up on the meaning of the term "logical fallacy" when you have a minute.

Posted by: Mr T | October 25, 2009 4:14 AM

I apologize. Just as I clicked the Post button, I realized "most" is an adverb in this context, since it modifies the adjective "illiterate".

Therefore, I am illiterate (mostly, or just partially). Q.E.D.

Posted by: Mr T | October 25, 2009 5:11 AM

Rutabagas and moon-pies, Al B. Quirky.

I suppose the only non-fallacious conclusion is that Hitchens doesn't actually believe it was written by a superlatively backward, barbaric, illiterate, superstitious and savage people. We can't have that, because if you cannot comprehend the absurdity of the claim that Hitchens himself was trying to point out, then it could be interpreted as racist or at least antisemitic. Instead, Hitchens believes (or at least implies) it was a superlatively backward, barbaric, illiterate, superstitious, and savage deity.

Duly noted.

I have to wonder: why not just go all the way and say that we shouldn't say anything negative about Judaism or all religion?

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 25, 2009 6:17 AM

Watched this tonight, man Hitchens can make a point.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 25, 2009 6:59 AM

Of course those describing Hitchens' description of the ancient Hebrews as antisemitic are being ridiculous, but it's a pity (though no surprise given his record over Iraq) that Hitchens is so sloppy with his facts. There is abundant evidence of Palaeolithic people living considerably longer than 25-30 years; their remains suggest that they were generally healthier than their Neolithic counterparts; and we know practically nothing about the extent of conflict between them or their attitude to natural phenomena. By 3,000 years ago (when Hitchens dates the supposed revelations to the ancient Hebrews), the latter would certainly have had a literate elite.

Posted by: Lion IRC | October 25, 2009 7:47 PM

Hi Bobxxx,
Some people say the afterlife was "invented" by people as a stress relief mechanism for those who fear death. I don't see what's to fear about a pain free, unconscious non-existence but that's someone else's bad logic not mine.
I say the stress relief mechanism invented by atheists is that there "is no afterlife". No consequences. No supreme justice. No souls. The murderer is just flesh and bone molecules the same as the murder victim. (Yawn. Oh well. Just make sure you dont get caught)
Suicide is a sin in islam so if you could think of a way to tell the difference between religious martyrdom and political power violence in the greedy fight for domination of a country with such a large percentage of the worlds known oil - then let us know. Meanwhile, atheists give their assent to the view that there is no moral distinction between EITHER.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 26, 2009 3:48 AM

I say the stress relief mechanism invented by atheists is that there "is no afterlife". No consequences. No supreme justice. No souls.

You don't think there are consequences for your actions? Okay, just for shits and giggles go and punch a police officer. After all, there are no consequences if you're an atheist...

Posted by: david | October 26, 2009 1:16 PM

Carl Sagan – I’m not smart enough to be an atheist

Posted by: John Morales | October 27, 2009 4:20 AM

LIRC:

I dont need atheism to enjoy life more, in fact I would find atheism boring and restrictive.

OK, I'll bite.

On what basis would you find atheism supposedly boring and restrictive?

--

PS I note that you're suggesting you'd change your beliefs on the basis of what would make you enjoy life more. I find that weird; I believe what I believe because that's what evidence and rationality compel me to believe. It's not like I choose my beliefs...

PPS You call it a fact; have you actually done this, or is the fact only that you believe it would be the case?

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 27, 2009 5:08 AM

On what basis would you find atheism supposedly boring and restrictive?

I could see how. Atheism is based in reality so you lose the ability to make shit up and think that reality responds to your deepest desires. ;)

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 28, 2009 4:41 PM

Does anyone really think that eliminating religion would end war?

No.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | October 30, 2009 7:47 PM

Dr. Craig? heh heh heh. Where is the link to the debate you speak of, ded?

Posted by: ded | October 30, 2009 9:42 PM

If you discussed the debate at Biola Univ several months ago then we are talking about the same debate. Hitchens got trounced. He looked more like a jolly side kick than one of the dreaded "four horsemen" of the new atheists. It's funny reading comments of atheists making excuses for him and acting as if Dr. Craig is some kind of joke. Yeah, The same Dr. Craig that has debated and defeated some of the brightest atheist minds is a joke. Uh-huh. Go debate him then.

Posted by: Wowbagger | October 30, 2009 10:02 PM

Yeah, The same Dr. Craig that has debated and defeated some of the brightest atheist minds is a joke.

An appropriate analogy: a skilled poker player with a useless hand can bluff an amateur with a superior hand into folding. Sadly (for Lane Craig and his ilk), this is reality and the winner is judged on the actual cards rather than the ability to play the game.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 30, 2009 10:26 PM

Wowbagger,

An appropriate analogy: a skilled poker player with a useless hand can bluff an amateur with a superior hand into folding

To be fair, when your cards show childrape, mass murder, eternal damnation for not doing what the celestial dictator wants you to do, organized guilt and the like, bluffing is really all you can do...:-)

Posted by: John Morales | October 31, 2009 5:42 AM

Ah, right, aratina.

Interesting that Biola University removed the video from YouTube. Presumably one would need to pirate the stream or buy the "Does God Exist? Debate DVD $19.95".

PS I like comment #12 at RDFnet (shamelessly copied below for others' amusement), which in a sense supports ded's claim that WCL is the better 'bater:

--
Comment #388988 by KRKBAB on June 18, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I seek out and listen to everything Hitchens does (debates, interviews...)and I love his style (and content!).
But I am fully prepared to say at this point that he often speaks above the audience and doesn't dumb things down enough. So even though he demolishes his opponents, the audience RARELY gets his points. It's really starting to irritate me. He could be so much more effective if he spoke at the level of his audience. One doesn't have to think to hard about what level THIS audience was at if most of them thought William Craig Lane had reasonable points! His points were so lame, I was embarrased for him. But what the hell- the audience clapped for his stupid reasoning.
--

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 4, 2009 8:50 PM

Hi Ded,
Have a look at the way Mr Hitchens sprinkles his arguments with biblical references and contrast that to the manner in which atheists object to religious folk "god-botting"
When he asserts disbelief in an event shown at a particular place in the bible the logical response would be to assume one is being invited to a bible debate.
Not so. Hitchens demurs in those cases. Satan was quite the bible scholar UNTIL he encountered a better expert in scripture, namely Jesus. Then satan realizes that maybe he’s out-gunned. An off-handed challenge to the historicity of people coming out of their tombs amid earthquakes provokes me to reply that people claiming to see ghosts is actually quite common and there’s no Richter Scale reference in the bible. Complaints against the possibility of huge numbers of Israelites suddenly leaving Pharaohs Egypt ignore the fact that a person can walk from Egypt to Israel in 5 seconds simply by taking 1 or 2 steps. Many Israelites even returned to Egypt.
Mr Hitchens raises the tired old “argument against interest” as if secular and Jewish historians (Tacitus and Josephus) had no idea about biting the hand which feeds you.
If he can get away with saying the Gospel writers were simply “doing their job” (as if risking persecution and death was a lifetime ambition) then one could make an equal claim against people who write incredibly profitable “Why I Hate God” books.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 5, 2009 1:06 AM

Hi Aratina,
I understand Mr Hitchens position on the bible. I simply make the point that each time he uses an example FROM the bible to make HIS point he is effectively drawing attention to the bible. That would be fine except his opponents justifiably want to use the bible to make THEIR case - or, at the very least, to mitigate the claims made by him.
The "Why I Hate God" books reference was made in the time honored tradition of polemicists and Mr Hitchens would understand the intent. I understand it is real hate of a character presumed to be non-existent.
I (at last) agree with you about Korean dictators - 100% agreement in fact.
Wanna ask PZ Myers if we can have a period of amnesty on god-botting long enough to do a blog comparing Kim Jong with the biblical characteristics of God?
Lion (IRC)
PS- I didn’t catch your unanswered question. Which thread was it in?

Posted by: ded | November 6, 2009 10:50 PM

Hey Lion,

I haven't heard Hitchens debate much on the topic of scripture.I'm thinking that would get pretty ugly for him. In the particular debate on the existence of God against William lane Craig, Hitchens didn't have an answer to anything. Cosmological argument..no answer. The moral argument..no answer. Actually, he all but conceded that argument. Fine Tuning arguments..no answer. The resurrection of Jesus.. No answer.

Remember, he is so smart that he "speaks above the level of the audience"!! Either that or when matched up against an opponent of Dr. Craig's stature, his usual bag of tricks doesn't work so well and he is exposed.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 6, 2009 11:23 PM

In the particular debate on the existence of God against William lane Craig, Hitchens didn't have an answer to anything.

Meh. I haven't seen the debate, and I don't care enough to look. Everything you list is easily dismissed anyway.

Cosmological argument..no answer.

The cosmological argument is incoherent.

The moral argument..no answer.

The moral argument is simply a bad argument from ignorance and incredulity.

Fine Tuning arguments..no answer.

The fine tuning argument is also a bad argument from ignorance and incredulity.

The resurrection of Jesus.. No answer.

The resurrection of Jesus isn't an argument, it's a creed. Since there is no evidence for it, it can simply be rejected.

Either that or when matched up against an opponent of Dr. Craig's stature, his usual bag of tricks doesn't work so well and he is exposed.

Craig has no answer to the atheist argument from silence.

No believer does.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 7, 2009 12:06 AM

ded,

Here is a YouTube clip of Hitchens answering the question of morality in his usual style — Hitchens on Q TV — starting at 7m41s and going to 8m41s. Did he not make this statement at the Biola debate? Do you have an answer to it?

Posted by: ded | November 7, 2009 9:01 AM

"Tell me one morally good action which a theist can do but an atheist cannot do — nobody has been able to do so yet. I can give you an act of evil that a theist can do but an atheist cannot do: suicide bombing in the name of a god."

This is not refuting the moral argument. I think Craig answered with "tithing". Throughout the debate, Hitch refused to argue against what the moral argument actually says which is that there is no objective foundation for morality with atheism. After he was pressed a few times Hitch conceded that this is indeed the case.

Like I said, Hitch had no answers. He had no arguments to show why atheism is true. None. You can bag on "creationist" arguments all day like Monday morning quarterbacks but most if not all of you would lose to Dr. Craig. At least with Christianity, there are arguments that can be put forward to defend the worldview. These arguments are not so easily dismissed as you like to boast about. If they are then why does Dr. Craig and other Christian apologists regularly defeat atheists in debates? I guess if you are so stuck in your own world led by bigots and ego maniacs like PZ Meyers, you will refuse to conceded any truth to Christianity. That's fine.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | November 7, 2009 9:35 AM

At least with Christianity Sauron, there are arguments that can be put forward to defend the worldview.

I know Sauron exists. I've read Tolkien's books and watched the movies. Do you think the Nazgûl would have blindly followed some Eye in a Tower if Sauron hadn't actually given them their rings? I think not! As the prophet J.R.R. has told us:

Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and of the domination of the One which was Sauron's. And they became forever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows. The Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Ulairi, the Enemy's most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death — The Silmarillion, "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", p 346

Refute that, if you dare.

Posted by: ded | November 7, 2009 10:10 AM

"Anything built on fiction like the bible is can easily be dismissed. "

I didn't mention anything about the bible. I'm talking about logic and deductive arguments. That's what I primarily hear from Dr. Craig and other good Christian apologists. That's what Hitch had a hard time so easily dismissing.

Posted by: ded | November 7, 2009 11:13 AM

"If you go back and listen to Hitchens and really think about what he said, you will see he demolished your point that religion serves as a foundation for morality."

I listened until the 10 minute mark or so. It's the same thing I've heard before and this is not a refutation of the moral argument. I don't know why so many atheists misunderstand or refuse to argue what the moral argument is saying. It's not about whether or not 'religious' people do wicked things and it's not even necessarily about how you come to know certain things are 'bad'. Why is there even a 'right' or 'wrong' at all? Objective moral values make no sense in the atheist worldview. If there is no God then objective moral values do not exist. That's the basis of the argument. All of the atheists whom I have heard debate Dr. Craig on this argument will concede it.

Anyway, I have no desire to have the same debate I have had dozens of times. I have better ways to spend my weekend. If you are still unclear about the moral argument, see Dr. Craig's website reasonable faith.

peace

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 7, 2009 11:27 AM

Ded, you must prove your claims that Xians have the TRUTH. We are waiting. Atheism, the belief in no gods, is the default position when there is no evidence for any gods, much less Yahweh. We are waiting for you to prove your claim. Put up the physical evidence or shut up.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | November 7, 2009 12:35 PM

ded,

It's not about whether or not 'religious' people do wicked things and it's not even necessarily about how you come to know certain things are 'bad'.

Right. It is about how a person who does not believe in a god can be just as moral as a person who, for whatever reason, believes in a god. It is about how religions (or the gods of religions) can and often do demand their adherents do morally evil things, so they cannot be the foundation for morality and thus neither can the god(s) of those religions be the foundation for morality.

Why is there even a 'right' or 'wrong' at all? Objective moral values make no sense in the atheist worldview.

Hitchens showed how objective moral values demonstrably do not come from religions or their gods. Is there some other platform you are placing objective moral values on besides theism?

If there is no God then objective moral values do not exist. That's the basis of the argument.

But that isn't a problem for atheism. The only real answer to that is "mu" because moral values do exist for atheists as well as theists. You need to first establish there is a god and that there are objective moral values, two separate issues — neither of which you (or Craig) have done, then you can ask if the latter makes sense without the former.