HLN's Joy Behar: Christianity vs. Atheism Is Debated

[democracy1st]

Run time: 08:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMG8KmflP0c   Posted on YouTube: October 27, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 27, 2009 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 2011

 
HLN's Joy Behar: Christianity vs. Atheism - Atheist Christopher Hitchens And Pastor Douglas Wilson Are Interviewed - 10/26/09

[MrModerate]

1. "Self-evident?" There is no cure for faith, except for insight. n/t

[spiritual_gunfighter]

3. +1000

Self evident??? That is where he starts his argument for the existance of god? Since the existance of god is self evident there is really no reason to have proof or even a well reasoned argument to support it.

The pastor also states that it is not self evident that humans shouldn't commit murder and rape. So are we to believe that if the pastor was an atheist he would be a murderer?

I consider myself an atheist with a moral compass, I have never thought to murder or rape anyone, I didn't need Jesus Christ to tell me not to do that.

[MrModerate]

4. Astonishing, no? Surely there's a person of faith out there somewhere . . .

who can come up with a cogent argument that would explain the last 10,000 years of human religion.

Or perhaps not.

[my future me]

2. Burden of Proof

The Pastor readily admits that with the burden of proof, he cannot prove that God exists. That is the definition of atheism.

[AlbertCat]

15. Burden of Proof

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." The burden is on those making the claim of anything supernatural.... God, aliens, fairies, the Easter bunny....


And it is self evident with the mess (amazing but a mess) of DNA and the random "cruelty" (it's really just total indifference to our wants and desires) of nature, not to mention that out of the vastness of the universe we can only survive by struggling on 1/3 of one pale blue dot of a planet's space, that God is something we made up. That is self evident. I don't care how good thinking a god exists makes people feel. Opium also makes you feel good.

[baldguy]

26. And the definition of faith is believing something *WITHOUT* proof.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

5. After watching this video, two things are apparant

The pastor brought the weak sauce, and Joy Behar is the worst interviewer on cable news.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

6. I Believe In Joe Gravity

Joe Gravity is an invisible deity who spends every second of every day holding things down to the ground. If you lift a pencil up and let it go, Joe Gravity will push it back down to the ground lest it float away into space (except for balloons and stuff, which is just proof that Joe Gravity hates balloons--which is why balloons are considered sinful in Joe Gravityism). I believe in Joe Gravity because Joe Gravity's existence is self-evident. You don't see objects floating away into space do you? Everything you drop ALWAYS goes immediately to the ground, doesn't it? What more proof do you NEED that there's an invisible man who holds everything down?

[madmom]

8. Hi neighbor...and a belated welcome to DU!

:hi:

[AtheistCrusader]

12. I think you have the makings of the next Flying Spaghetti Monster cult there.

Keep up the good work.

[madmom]

7. This pastor absolutely convinced me...

that I would never survive in his church, Talk about weak kneed, wishy washy, boring. How has he made it to this level of status?:boring:
I'm an non-believer with no credentials and I could win a debate with him. :eyes:

[rd_kent]

9. Not to undermine YOUR credibility, but ANYONE can win this argument

Faith, by its definition, does not require proof, thats why its called faith. As a hardcore atheist, I could care less what someone believes. What I do care about is when those beliefs are thrust upon me as truth that I must abide by.

[AlbertCat]

16. Faith, by its definition, does not require proof, thats why its called faith.

Bingo!

Faith is also the end of inquiry. Why investigate something you already know to be "true and right"?


And it is telling that the faithful are always trying to "prove" their notions with scientific-like, empirical-esque arguments. If science and empirical evidence have no merit, why go there?

(Because in your everyday, ho-hum life, science and empirical evidence is very very successful and helpful.... essential, I'd say)

[tomm2thumbs]

10. Hitchens is a very smart guy, I am guessing this is a good movie

thanks for posting

[evenso]

11. I'm tired of this debate

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic god of Abraham is pure MYTH. It is the creation of patriarchs who ruled over nomadic tribes at constant war with one another, constantly fighting each other and against the elements of nature. Who wants to follow a god that came out of that fray? It's an angry sadistic god invented by angry sadistic tyrants that ruled over their people and treated women and children like property.

All peoples invent gods to suit their circumstances!

[AlbertCat]

17. I'm tired of this debate

I know! It's like talking to a brick wall!

Face it. People like the idea of an eternal parent who doesn't die like their real parents and so they will be there to look after them always. Plus, being in a social group with others who believe the same things feels good. Revelation and a spiritual rush is a groovy high. Ritual and theatre can make it seem important. Plus who wants to die? So let's all do something else! Go to a happy place (if you've been good) or come back as something or someone else!

But none of these things make any of it TRUE.


Not to mention the average 3rd grader knows more about the world and the universe than ALL the authors of the Bible....or any of the religious texts of the major religions.



And Scientology was made up on a bet.

[NAO]

13. the christian believes in the talking snake, all the animals on the ark...

the whole story, with all it's fantastic yarns.

I expected him to take a more reasonable position, on types and lessons, but he just takes it like it is.

He really comes off as an idiot.

Hitchens displayed uncharacteristic self-restraint in not constantly talking over host and other guest.

[whathehell]

18. They bring in a Fundie to represent Chrisitanity?...That's rigging the game

Most Christians are NOT fundamentalists who believe in the literal intepretation of the bible.

Had they brought in Thom Hartmann, it would have been a fairer fight.

[immoderate]

20. Not really.

I love Thom Hartmann, but his views on religion are no more valid than the fundy. These debates are never fair because atheist arguments are based on logic and reason -- and debates are based on logic and reason. Atheists always have the advantage when it comes to reason.

--imm

[whathehell]

22. Yes, really.

"Thom Hartmann...his views on religion are no more valid than the fundy"??!:crazy:

That statement betrays not only your ignorance of Hartmann, and religion, but your ignorance of atheism as well.

Atheism isn't "based on logic and reason"...It's based on strict Empiricism which is in itself imperfect due to its heavily reliance on technology.

The Scientific community itself admits it's inability to "prove or disprove" the existence of God.

[immoderate]

25. Well, I don't know him personally,

But I've heard Hartmann on religion, and it seems to me he's basing it on faith. So here is your chance to clear up my "ignorance." Explain how his views are more valid than a fundy's.

Scientists never use the terms "prove" or "disprove." And it's no surprise that they don't weigh in about imaginary beings.

Here's a tip: You should look up empiricism before you dig yourself any deeper. Hint: It has nothing to do with technology. (BTW, if technology is imperfect, how does faith measure up?)

I am but an empty vessel. I can't wait for my next lesson, O wise one.:bounce:

On edit: Here's a book recommendation: Victor J. Stenger; God: The Failed Hypothesis; How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Notice that he says "shows" not proves.

--imm

[AtheistCrusader]

14. "And you could get to like it"

I wish I had HALF of Hitchen's rapier wit. I would be happy with just half.
I love listening to this stuff.

[BREMPRO]

19. Hitchens was remarkably calm and rational in the face of the implausible

and indefensible literal and selective interpretation of the bible by Wilson. There may be an argument for the existence of God, but Wilson in his fundamentalist blind faith interpretation of biblical stories, had nothing of substance to offer to support his case. I can't believe he thinks that people without the bible would naturally be inclined to kill, rape, pillage etc... It's fear mongering to justify the need for religion and historically inaccurate. Hitchens was sharp and shot down Wilson with the historical parallels of the bible from tribal mores and culture and his pointing out that the bible supports genocide is a compelling argument against the infallibility of scriptures moral certitude. Even though Hitchens self identified himself as an Atheist, his position that "no one could possibly know for sure" is classic agnosticism, or de-facto Atheist as Dawkins would say. So Agnostics and parents that don't spank their kids win this round.

[immoderate]

21. Almost all the atheists I know would agree with Hitchens...

...that there is no absolute proof either way. So they are agnostic. But you can believe in god and also be agnostic. They have no god, so they are atheists. You are confusing belief with knowledge.

--imm

[BREMPRO]

23. How can you "believe in god and also be agnostic" ?

the definition of agnostic is:
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

It seems to me incompatible to believe in god if you also believe it is impossible to know or skeptical there is a god? A belief in something implies full faith without equivocation. That is impossible if you are an agnostic.

what do you mean by "They have no god, so they are atheists." and how am i confusing "belief with knowledge" In my post I was referring to knowledge of the bible that Wilson bases his belief system on, which is different but related and supportive of his belief in God.

Most experienced atheists are what Dawkins calls De-Facto Atheists- or nearly certain that there is no god, but believe they don't have the capacity to know for certain.

Dawkins lists seven points of view across what he says is a continuous spectrum that is more accurate in understanding the range than a simple black and white Theist or Athiest, namely:

1.Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, “I do not believe, I know.”

2.Very high probability but short of 100%. De facto theist. “I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”

3.Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”

4.Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. “ God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

5.Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. “I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”

6.Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

7. Strong atheist. “I know there is not God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.”

Hitchens and Dawkins are a category 6 but leaning towards category 7. Dawkins comment about category 7 is interesting:

“Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.”

[immoderate]

24. You'll have to broaden your horizons.

You start with a very limited definition of agnostic. Here's a passage from wikipedia:

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — are unknown or, in some forms of agnosticism, unknowable.<1>It is not a religious declaration in itself, and an agnostic may also be a theist or an atheist.<2>

Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,<3> using agnostic in the sense of noncommittal.<4> However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion.

Many philosophers and thinkers have written about agnosticism, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Albert Einstein, Robert G. Ingersoll, and Bertrand Russell. Religious scholars who wrote about agnosticism are Peter Kreeft, Blaise Pascal and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later elected as Pope Benedict XVI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

There's a lot more stuff there which isn't in your dictionary.

Theism is about belief in god. An atheist is without this belief in god. Gnosticism is about knowledge, usually implying a direct revelation. Agnostic theists have not received this revelation, but they have faith, so they believe. It is far less likely that an atheist would claim knowledge based on direct revelation, (i.e., from whom?) so their knowledge is based on reason, and a recognition of the limitations of reason. Since few atheists claim absolute knowledge of the non-existence of god, from whatever source, they are also agnostic. An exception is Victor Stenger, whose book, God: The Failed Hypothesis; How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, does it from reason alone.

--imm

[and-justice-for-all]

27. Belief in invisible friends is not required for a fulfilling life...

and more often then not, religion is more harmful than good.