Does this book# deny afterlife/God?
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 3:55 pm
# "God is not great: How religion poisons everything" Or what does it say about God if He exists?
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
Hello Tadpole,TadPole wrote:# "God is not great: How religion poisons everything" Or what does it say about God if He exists?
I got the impression Hitchens is definite that God does not in fact exist, and that sensible Christians can see that all religious language is mythical and metaphorical when it makes claims about the existence of supernatural entities. This presents a good question - does Hitchens believe that the existence of God is merely unlikely, or is it flatly impossible? I will post this on the questions thread.DWill wrote:Christopher Hitchens doesn't say there is or isn't a god or there is or isn't an afterlife. As he personally judges the evidence, both are unlikely, so he chooses atheism. The gods that we have in scripture most definitely are manmade, but he doesn't insist that there can be no god at all. His book is meant to be a defense of atheism as a perfectly adequate way of seeing the world and living a good and moral life. To do this, he needs to show the serious drawbacks of what the majority still believe is necessary to achieve that life--religious belief.
does Hitchens believe that the existence of God is merely unlikely, or is it flatly impossible?
If religion relies on a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, would it not be logical and reasonable to say, that religion itself does not exist. The above statement would then become, "nothing, as defined as nothing clearly does not exist". This, may ring true, no? Can you seperate god from religion, is it possible they are both the same? Can you have one without the other. Historically speaking, no.God as defined in religion clearly does not exist.
TruthWe cannot blame a god on the state of our world, and the way we treat eachother. We need to all look ourselves in the mirror and realize we alone can lead the way to peace, or we can let eachother strangle the world with hatred.
This did not originate from religious Dogma doodie. But, it does sound like it. Let me restate, if there is sufficient evidence to support the reality of a god, that god would have no purpose. It would be defined, practitioners of religion could not use this creature to make interpretations, or to use it to suit their needs.if a "something" other than ourselves has the sufficient evidence and reasoning to support belief, that "something" would be named specie not god.
Sorry, not following you. God's existence cannot be verified, but religion obviously exists. It does not follow that without one the other cannot exist. That's a false premise.Suzanne wrote: If religion relies on a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, would it not be logical and reasonable to say, that religion itself does not exist. The above statement would then become, "nothing, as defined as nothing clearly does not exist". This, may ring true, no? Can you seperate god from religion, is it possible they are both the same? Can you have one without the other. Historically speaking, no.
Interbane, you are right that absolute claims are arrogant, but not about the lack of insight. For example, I believe absolutely in the existence of the universe as described by astronomy, and am happy to be arrogant in debating anyone who disagrees. Recognising that mainstream science does not know everything and still has areas of debate, there is a core of knowledge which is absolutely true, and this is a major modern philosophical insight. Without arrogance on the part of those who know the truth, people who believe false claims (eg creationism) easily get confused into thinking it is all a matter of opinion, when in fact it is a debate between right and wrong.Interbane wrote:To believe in something absolutely is arrogant and lacks philosophical insight.
I don't see you as the begging type, Interbane.Religion is real, of course. When you ask if it exists, it's almost as though you're begging for it to be present in a material form.
If there may be a god, you are looking for material evidence. If my expression encompasses what you think is the only paractical choice for a belief, you are in essence saying that god may in fact exist, you are looking for material evidence to support that gods existance. The "he" you refer to as begging is yourself.This expression encompasses what I think is the only practical choice for a belief. When all the evidence is considered, it becomes extremely unlikely that there is a god. So, the person who has considered the evidence believes that there is no god. The thing is, such people are also usually good at critical thinking, and realize there are few things, if any, which we can be 100% sure of. We can't even be sure that the sun will come up tomorrow. But we go on believing that it will, because there's no sense brooding over the possibility that it won't.
The premise of religion, is that god infact does exist. Please provide examples that this is not true, otherwise, you are incorrect in stating that this premise is false. Atheism must be an example of this premise if Interbane's words are to be considered. There is no existing god, but there may be one. The non existance of a god is central to Atheism, but god is still a presence, making Atheism a religion. There is a differance between belief and religion.God's existence cannot be verified, but religion obviously exists. It does not follow that without one the other cannot exist. That's a false premise.
You provided a definition from Wikipedia which states that religion only encompasses certain beliefs. It is irrelevant whether those beliefs are actually true. Likewise, astrology is the study or belief that the relative positions of celestial bodies can provide useful information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. Now most of us don't believe this is actually true. Astrology is pure pseudoscience, but still we can acknowledge that astrology does, in fact, exist. It exists as a construct of belief or as a focus of study. Its definition ends there. We don't need to go into whether it's true or not.Suzanne wrote:
Geo wrote:The premise of religion, is that god infact does exist. Please provide examples that this is not true, otherwise, you are incorrect in stating that this premise is false. Atheism must be an example of this premise if Interbane's words are to be considered. There is no existing god, but there may be one. The non existance of a god is central to Atheism, but god is still a presence, making Atheism a religion. There is a differance between belief and religion.God's existence cannot be verified, but religion obviously exists. It does not follow that without one the other cannot exist. That's a false premise.
Dan Barker wrote: People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, " I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic.
Agnosticism is the refusal to take as fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence. It may be applied to any area of life, whether science, UFOs, politics or history, though it is most commonly invoked in a religious context as it was first used. The word agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley, who attached the prefix a-- (not without) to gnostic, which is from the Greek gnosis (knowledge). One common fallacy about agnosticism is that it is a halfway house between theism and atheism-but that cannot be since it performs in a different arena. If you answer the question "Do you believe in a god?" with a "yes" (by any definition of "god"), then you are a theist. If you cannot answer "yes" you are an atheist-you are without a belief in a god.
Another fallacy is that agnostics claim to know nothing, making them equal to skeptics (รก la Hume) who claim that nothing can be known to exist outside of the mind. Although there may be a few who continue to push philosophy to this extreme, most contemporary agnostics do claim to know man things that are supported b evidence. They may posses strong opinions and even take tentative stands on fuzzy issues, but they will not claim as a fact something for which data is lacking or something which data contradicts. Agnosticism is sensible.
It turns out that atheism means much less than I thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. It predicts nothing of morality or motives. In my case, becoming an atheist was a positive move-the removal of the negative baggage of religious fallacy-and that is rather like having a large debt removed. It has brought me up to zero, to where my mind is free to think. Those atheists who want to go beyond zero, who want to actually put some money in the bank-and most of them do, I think-will embrace a positive philosophy such as humanism, feminism or another naturalistic ethical system. Or the will promote charity, philanthropy, learning, science, beauty, art-all those human activities that enhance life. But to be an atheist, you don't need any positive philosophy at all or need to be a good person. You are an atheist if you lack a belief in a god.