[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by adamrules247)
I've seen two debates in which he argued the exitence of God (I don't usually watch Hitchens). One aganst his brother and then the other against John Lennox, in both he used this line. In all fairness his brother didn't address whether God exists or not either, just the negetive effects on working class society with the retreat of religion.

I see. It'd be quite weird if he just came out with that spontaneously.

Anyway, he's a brilliant rhetorician, and he certainly knows his stuff. I'd hate to be on the wrong side of him in a debate.

[Organ]

Not much of a fan. He's a bit of a nihilist regards religion.

I'm an atheist but I love the infrastructure of religion. Cathedrals, mosques, holy books - I find them really interesting, shame about some of the followers!

I don't think it's an inherently damaging to be religous either.

[Beneb]

I'll be taking 'Hitch-22' and 'Love, Poverty and War' with me on holiday to France and Germany.

[CombineHarvester]

(Original post by Diety)
Got a link to this?

Youtube search. I cba

[py0alb]

(Original post by adamrules247)
No decent theist

No true scotsman lol.

[adamrules247]

(Original post by py0alb)
No true scotsman lol.

I've never seen the logic in the sometimes slavish devotion people have to this so called fallacy. You will need to get into a very long debate (and it's too early in the morning) to consider whether the Catholic Church is the only valid church. Do I consider the theology of an American Protestant valid, no, not at all.

[py0alb]

(Original post by adamrules247)
I've never seen the logic in the sometimes slavish devotion people have to this so called fallacy. You will need to get into a very long debate (and it's too early in the morning) to consider whether the Catholic Church is the only valid church. Do I consider the theology of an American Protestant valid, no, not at all.

because you have more rigorous evidence for your beliefs than he does eh?

[adamrules247]

(Original post by py0alb)
because you have more rigorous evidence for your beliefs than he does eh?

Well, quite frankly, yes. The idea that only the Catholic Church has the authority to teach religion is scriptural (in the Acts of the Apostles). but like I said, it's pointless debating this issue with an atheist.

[py0alb]

(Original post by adamrules247)
Well, quite frankly, yes. The idea that only the Catholic Church has the authority to teach religion is scriptural (in the Acts of the Apostles). but like I said, it's pointless debating this issue with an atheist.

That's rather defeatist of you. At least have the courage to debate it with yourself.

[adamrules247]

(Original post by py0alb)
That's rather defeatist of you. At least have the courage to debate it with yourself.

Well it's a circular argument to an atheist, and therefore pointless. I'd happily debate this with a Protestant Christian. Also worth noting that the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican (who represent 1.1 billion, 500 million and 80 million Christians) and these three denominations don't take the 'being a Christian makes me a better person line'.

[py0alb]

(Original post by adamrules247)
Well it's a circular argument to an atheist, and therefore pointless. I'd happily debate this with a Protestant Christian. Also worth noting that the majority of Christians are Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican (who represent 1.1 billion, 500 million and 80 million Christians) and these three denominations don't take the 'being a Christian makes me a better person line'.

I'm curious. If you are smart enough to recognise that your argument is flawed/circular/irrational/based on dubious assumptions and would hence be laughed at by an impartial observer, then how do you manage to convince yourself as to its veracity?

[adamrules247]

(Original post by py0alb)
I'm curious. If you are smart enough to recognise that your argument is flawed/circular/irrational/based on dubious assumptions and would hence be laughed at by an impartial observer, then how do you manage to convince yourself as to its veracity?

It's flawed to an atheist/agnostic, that's all. To a theist, who accepts it, it makes perfect sense.

If I were to debate this with an atheist (which would be pointless as they think they're all bonkers) I would use the argument from history.

[py0alb]

(Original post by adamrules247)
It's flawed to an atheist/agnostic, that's all. To a theist, who accepts it, it makes perfect sense.

If I were to debate this with an atheist (which would be pointless as they think they're all bonkers) I would use the argument from history.

That's a very odd way of looking at it. Either an argument is valid or it is not. There is no subjectivity about it. If its flawed to an atheist then either you need to explain it better or its flawed fullstop and you need to reconsider your position. For you position to be tenable to need to be able to defend it to everyone, not just a cherrypicked debating partner of your choice.

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by adamrules247)
I have a question for you Hitchens fans and would be grateful if you could answer it. I've heard Mr Hitchens, on numerous occasions in debates on the existence of God, ask what moral action can a religious person do that an irreligious person cannot do. Now it's a nice piece of rhetoric which traps the other person I'm sure, but do any Hitchens fans really think that's a substantive argument against God's existence? And if they do think it's an argument that has anything to do with God's existence could you then please explain how it's relevant.

No, no, no

It was an argument that you can live a perfect moral humanist life without having to invoke your version of mystical superstitious religion entities - that you happen to have been brought-up with.

Clearly that argument went over-your-head ....

[Lord Hysteria]

(Original post by adamrules247)
It's flawed to an atheist/agnostic, that's all. To a theist, who accepts it, it makes perfect sense.

If I were to debate this with an atheist (which would be pointless as they think they're all bonkers) I would use the argument from history.

What? The Greek Gods? Roman Gods? Ancient Egyptian God(s)? Aztec Gods?

Oh wait ... you don't believe in those ones ...

*snigers to kitchen to make a hot chocolate*

[adamrules247]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
No, no, no

It was an argument that you can live a perfect moral humanist life without having to invoke your version of mystical superstitious religion entities - that you happen to have been brought-up with.

Clearly that argument went over-your-head ....

Le sigh. The majority of Christians agree with that. But why mention it in a debate on the existence of God, it simply makes no sense. Is it not perfectly possible that it was simply a piece of rhetoric designed to trap the theist. Please explain why he has used this on numerous occasions on the existence of God.

And please don't make assumptions about my upbringing. I was bought up in a secular irreligious household where religion was mocked and seen as the retreat of the weird. I chose to become a Catholic. My mother thinks it's strange. Please apologise for making assumptions about my upbringing.

[adamrules247]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
What? The Greek Gods? Roman Gods? Ancient Egyptian God(s)? Aztec Gods?

Oh wait ... you don't believe in those ones ...

*snigers to kitchen to make a hot chocolate*

Please read what the debate was about. It's about (and based on the premises that Christianity is true) which Church is then the true one. Not difficult if you actually read the debate.

[adamrules247]

(Original post by py0alb)
That's a very odd way of looking at it. Either an argument is valid or it is not. There is no subjectivity about it. If its flawed to an atheist then either you need to explain it better or its flawed fullstop and you need to reconsider your position. For you position to be tenable to need to be able to defend it to everyone, not just a cherrypicked debating partner of your choice.

It's a very simple concept. If you are debating something with someone ad you have a source which both sides agree is valid the you will use it, if one side doesn't agree it's a valid source then I won't use it. Would there be a point in debating with you which Christian Church is the true one when you don't believe any are true.

[py0alb]

(Original post by adamrules247)
It's a very simple concept. If you are debating something with someone ad you have a source which both sides agree is valid the you will use it, if one side doesn't agree it's a valid source then I won't use it. Would there be a point in debating with you which Christian Church is the true one when you don't believe any are true.

Just because I'm not a Muslim doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on Sunni vs Shia as being the true theological descendents of Mohammed. In fact my opinion would probably be more valid because I would be able to maintain a level of objectivity, not having been brought up in either culture.

Same applies to christianity - the last people you would ask for a sensible, objective assessment of catholic vs protestant debate would be the devout catholics and protestants themselves. Clearly they're going to be biased, no matter how much they try not to be.

[Kinkerz]

(Original post by adamrules247)
I have a question for you Hitchens fans and would be grateful if you could answer it. I've heard Mr Hitchens, on numerous occasions in debates on the existence of God, ask what moral action can a religious person do that an irreligious person cannot do. Now it's a nice piece of rhetoric which traps the other person I'm sure, but do any Hitchens fans really think that's a substantive argument against God's existence? And if they do think it's an argument that has anything to do with God's existence could you then please explain how it's relevant.

I agree, he used this in the wrong debate. It is a good punch line/phrase to use in front of an audience and he took advantage of that. This is one of the reasons why he is sometimes overrated. He gives similar responses in religious debates no matter the title.

However, it has been said to me personally and I've heard it in various debates that I've watched that scripture holds the root of morality. This is particularly prominent from Christians and the Bible. Hitchens and many atheists find this irksome.