An Atheist Responds : Christopher Hitchens Throws Down the Gauntlet to those who believe in God

Can you (the atheist) explain existence?

Yes!

The question was an invitation to do so, not merely a inquiry as to your opinion as to whether you think you can or not.

Can you (the atheist) explain where existence came from?

It didn't "come form" anywhere. There is no basis for the assumption it did. Existence always is.

You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it. This widely accepted theory maintains that there was a beginning for existence. Therefore, other than your assertion, what is your proof that this theory is wrong?

We perceive stimuly through our (material) sensory organs, and process it in a physical brain through electro-chemical reactions. We are that way because we have evolved to have those organs. 

You have not addressed existence only a perception thereof.

How did the universe come into being? At one point, a singularity happened, and physical laws started working. While we can’t measure the singularity because we ARE bound by the laws of physics, everything can smoothly happen through material means from there. 

Therefore, you admit that we cannot know. If we cannot know, then any position about the origin of existence is based upon faith. The atheist who asserts there is no God is doing so only on faith as is the theist or deist who asserts that there is, in deed, a God.

Can you (the atheist) explain existence in relation to the law of entropy?

There is no such relationship. Perhaps your thinking about energy in a limited system.

The law of entropy operates throughout the universe, not just a closed system. The universe exists. Therefore, the law of entropy operates throughout the universe… By definition, that is a relationship.

In relation to the law of entropy? Entropy always wins, OVERALL. It’s chaos.

If your assertion is correct, then the universe started from a more organized state than it is currently in or than it will eventually wind up in. Working backward with this concept, the implication is that something or Someone created the universe as chaos cannot work in reverse.

It does not increase all the time everywhere, it only need to grow overall. While life runs counter to entropy, it produces entropy outside of it. 

Your assertion demands an origin for life and an explanation of why it “runs counter to entropy.” As for your assertion that [life] produces entropy outside of it[self], your assertion is unsupported.

Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence.

This method of argument is called “begging the question.” You have not attempted to explain existence nor where it came from.

Just for fun though. Does God exist? Then he is part of any existence you seem to have trouble understanding. If God does not exist, well then, what's the problem?

The creator can exist independent of the creation. Even within our limited understanding of the universe, you must admit that a parent exists independently of a child. Therefore, it is not a giant leap of logic to assert that the Creator of the universe can exist independent of His creation. Just as a parent can influence a child or, even, direct it, the Creator of the universe could influence the universe or even direct it.

Can you (the atheist) explain the origin of the phenomenon known as cosmic background radiation?

Well, no, because I'm not certain what is called cosmic background radiation is what current theory believes.

Cosmic Background radiation? Easy one. Ask anyone with undergrad physics. It appeared extremely early in the universe, radiation emitted while matter was being formed. 

According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God.

Can you (the atheist) prove there is no God?

Why would I? I have no interest in discouraging those who believe in God from their belief.

The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations.

If you (the atheist) cannot prove that there is no God, then is not the position that there is none, based upon faith?

Can an atheist prove there is no God? Traditionally the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. 

Isn’t atheism based on faith? Weak atheism is consistent, simple lack of faith: I see a lack of evidence for the existence of God, so I don’t believe. 

Can you see existence? If you cannot explain existence, then there is evidence of something beyond the “faith of atheism.”

I've never tried to prove it, so I wouldn't know. Who knows, I might believe in God if anyone ever shows me evidence for a God, or the description of one is plausible to me.

As I noted earlier, your assertion that existence “always has been” is unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, a point of creation (the “Big Bang”) is supported by evidence (cosmic background radiation). A point of creation is, prima fascia, evidence of a Creator.

How is the faith there is no God any different from any other faith? (lacking moral codes, holidays, rituals, obligations to one's fellowman, etc., excepted)

I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask someone who has such faith. Everything I believe and know is based on reason which I fully understand. I will not believe anything else, and accept no contradictions.

If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why should not the "law of the jungle" be the governing moral code of humanity?

Strong atheism (There CAN’T be a God) IS based on faith. 

How is lack of faith different from any other faith? Weak atheism is simple lack of any religious belief. Skepticism. Strong atheism is another animal altogether. 

That's your belief, not mine. You believe moral principles are arbitrary, dictated by someone.

I have not asserted any such fact or belief. I have merely asked a question.

I believe moral principles are absolute and eternal, based on reality, the nature of existence and the nature of man.

There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc.

Reality cannot be defied, and never forgives wrong. God does forgive wrong. Morality is not absolute for the religious.

You have confused an argument about the “nature of God” with one about the “existence of God.” A deist would argue that God is not forgiving in the slightest. Additionally, you have confused man’s belief system based upon faith (a religion) with reality.

Why not the law of the jungle? We evolved as social and tribal animals. Tribes have their rules, that’s why we’re not complete chaos. Moreover, ethics can be grounded in logical principles.

The only logic that seems universally operable in human moral behavior is “if you can get away with it, you can do it.” I am not sure there is anyone who call that axiom a “moral” or “ethical” principle.

Not to mention most atheists believe in the social contract theory.   

What part of the social contract was Hitler fulfilling? Or, Stalin? Or, Vlad Dracula? Or, the Marquis de Sade? Or, a suicide bomber?

If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why do you object to others claiming there is one, since such a claim would not matter by your position?

I've already said I have no such objection. I do not need the idea of a God to understand the world I live in, but I think a lot of people do, and since that belief is the source of their principles and values, I really do not want to see them loose their faith. I do not want to live in a world filled with people without values and principles.

The question was not directed to you, in particular, but to atheists in general. For example, why would an atheist file a lawsuit about the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Motto on coins? If there is no God (by the atheistic assertion), then what difference does it make to have “…one nation under God…” or In God We Trust?

I'd be interested in the answers your atheist friends have for these questions

You got 'em.

I don't believe in your God, but certainly do not care that you do.

I have said nothing about my personal beliefs. However, your concession that I may believe as I choose is welcome, nonetheless.

Except when someone who does believe in God asks me, or uses that concept in some argument, I never give it a thought. I certainly do not "maintain" there is no God, I just have no reason to believe in one, but it only one of many things I do not believe in, and to me, of little or no significance.

You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist.

...name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.

I would submit that The United States, which Hitchens chooses to be a citizen of, could not have been founded by nonbelievers.

The term, naked ape, comes from Desmond Morris’ well known book by that title. There are many Christians that believe in Darwinian evolution, especially people such as Francis Collins and Alister McGrath. Many Christians do not, but they all agree that God is the source of all creation and is involved in the creation of humanity.

Now I am completely confused by your position. If you are an Atheist and you do not believe in Darwinian evolution, then how do you explain man?

If I understand your position, whatever is beneficial to you is right, and whatever causes death or misery is wrong? Is that your basis for determining what is right and wrong?

Right meaning” to his advantage?” Wrong meaning.,”not to his advantage?” But the average teen—of whatever age— often does stuff just for the hell of it.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

And he cannot. He cay say, “I say.” He can say “We say.” He can even say, “History says.” And all of those are changeable.

Bottom line is that not only does he need to be told what is right and wrong. He’ll also need updates. :>)

Indeed.

The root of the word "rational" is "ratio" which is the relationship between two.

When the atheist denies God, he omits half of the ratio in his thinking, i.e. objective truth. Therefore, atheism is irrational per se.

//Can an atheist prove there is no God? Traditionally the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic//

Okay so the atheist claims no God, run with it.

Mr. Lucky Dog,

I'm not sure what your purpose is, but mine was only to answer your questions, only to show you what I believe and why. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything.

Now this is very interesting:

"You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist."

I never claimed to be. I frequently point out I never call myself an atheist, because I think it is stupid to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe. I do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it. It's not a belief, it's a lack of one. Quite frankly, the word "deity" or "God" does not identify any meaningful concept that I could even consider believing. That's all.

"You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it."

I find it interesting the people keep telling me what I "must" do. Whatever they call it, the so-called "big bang" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Just a guess, like evolution. I do not have to refute, I just don't accept other people's guesses about anything.

Now I have no idea where any of this comes from. I never wrote them, and certainly do not accept any of it. It's all physicalist evolutionary garbage I've never held:

"We perceive stimuly through our (material) sensory organs, and process it in a physical brain through electro-chemical reactions.  We are that way because we have evolved to have those organs.  ... How did the universe come into being? At one point, a singularity happened, and physical laws started working. While we can’t measure the singularity because we ARE bound by the laws of physics, everything can smoothly happen through material means from there. "

"Your assertion demands an origin for life"

What assertion would that be. I do not know that life had a beginning. Neither do you, nor anyone else, but most people just assume it did.

You quoted me: "Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence."

Then wrote: "This method of argument is called 'begging the question.'"

Sigh! No son, it's called defining one's terms. I wasn't making an argument for anything, only telling you what I mean when I use the term, "existence."

"According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God."

I do not care if you want to believe that. I don't.

"The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations."

I have no idea what that means. No proof of what? Faith in what? I do not believe their a fairies at the bottom of the garden. Why would that have to be proved? Do you call that "faith?" Is English your first language? Do you believe in a literal Phoenix? So, is that your "faith?" You can't prove there is not a Phoenix.

"There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc."

What are you talking about? Moral principles are just absolute as the principles of Chemistry. Does everyone just automatically know the principles of Chemistry? Why would you think people just automatically know moral principles? Most people don't, that is the explanation for the evil in the world. Good grief!

"We evolved as social and tribal animals."

Really!? And you know this how? Believe it if you like, but I know it's bunk.

I hope you find my answers interesting, else I'm sorry I wasted your time. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, only expressing my views, for your, or anyone else's consideration.

Hank

Time to bring back this old tagline...

“The term, naked ape, comes from ...”

Yes, I’m very much aware of where the term comes from.

“If you are an Atheist and you do not believe in Darwinian evolution, then how do you explain man?”

Why would I have to explain man? I have little or no interest in origins, and neither I nor anyone else knows what they are, and I have no interest in all the pseudo-scientist’s guesses and fairy tales, anymore than I have in the religious fairy tales. I am not plagued, as most men are, by some crying need to “know where everything came from.” All that is important to me is what is here, and what it’s nature is, which will be the same however it got here.

“If I understand your position, whatever is beneficial to you is right, and whatever causes death or misery is wrong? Is that your basis for determining what is right and wrong?”

Certainly not. That is much more like hedonism than ethical principles. The basis of my ethical principles is the nature of reality and the nature of man. The most important aspect of human nature is volition, the ability and necessity to consciously choose all one does, which means he is responsible for all he does, a responsibility reality does not allow one to evade. That is the basis, but ethics is a very broad philosophical field, impossible to delineate in a few words.

Hank

The basis of my ethical principles is the nature of reality and the nature of man.

That's like saying "the basis for my house is the electrical wiring." And pretending that it put itself there without the aid of an Electrician.

The most important aspect of human nature is volition, the ability and necessity to consciously choose all one does, which means he is responsible for all he does, a responsibility reality does not allow one to evade.

Unless some outside Force mercifully mitigates your errors and graciously pays your bill.

“The basis of my ethical principles is the nature of reality and the nature of man.

That’s like saying “the basis for my house is the electrical wiring.” And pretending that it put itself there without the aid of an Electrician.”

If you don’t see any difference, it explains a lot. So be it.

I was just answering a question, not trying to convince anyone. So, if I’m mistaken, what do you care.

Hank

So, if I’m mistaken, what do you care.

It's in the nature of Christians to care.

Since most of you have expressed doubt, or even scorn, concerning my ethical views, if you are interested, here is an excellent brief explication of Objectivist ethics (Ayn Rand) by Christian writer, John Piper.

The Ethics of Ayn Rand

My ethical views are largely in agreement with Rand's, but not totally, and are based on the same kind of reasoning. I think John Piper did an excellent job describing that ethics and reasoning, but I obviously do not agree with some of his criticism. Here is my article about his article:

Ayn Rand and Christianity

These two articles should give you a decent view of how my ethical principles are derived, and what they are. I do not expect you to agree with them, it is just for your information.

Hank

It seems that by eliminating the most important questions and selecting only things that you believe are important that you have come up with a belief system that only confirms what you choose to believe in the first place. There is no room for a discussion on that basis. Even after all this time, I still have no idea why you believe the things that you do, nor do I understand the standard by which you make ethical decisions. All that I get is that man is responsible for his decisions. That does not tell me anything about what those decisions should be, or how someone should make those decisions. Those aspects do not seem to be important to you, but that is what ethical or moral philosophy is all about. For what it is worth, there is a debate about whether anyone actually makes a free choice, since are choices are made upon external authorities, such as family, friends, authors, and teachers. That is in itself worth pondering.

“Even after all this time, I still have no idea why you believe the things that you do, nor do I understand the standard by which you make ethical decisions.”

If you haven’t read the articles linked in my last post, you never will understand, which is OK with me, if you don’t choose too. I really never thought you, or most who think the way you do would understand me, and I have no particular wish that you do. I’m just offering it for anyone who would like to.

[I realize from the timing of the posts, you may not have seen my last when you sent yours.]

Hank

Hank,

Sorry for any confusion on my last post to you. I was addressing both you and Jormungandr in the same post. While I tried to separate all of our comments with different colors to reduce confusion, the effort was obviously not completely successful. Your comments were in blue, Jormungandr was in green and mine were red for the previous post and in black for the current (at that time) post.

I'm not sure what your purpose is, but mine was only to answer your questions, only to show you what I believe and why. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything.

My purpose was to engage you and Jormungandr in a friendly debate on the topic. The questions I posed were structured in an attempt to elicit logic supporting replies.

Now this is very interesting:

"You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist."

I never claimed to be. I frequently point out I never call myself an atheist, because I think it is stupid to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe. I do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it. It's not a belief, it's a lack of one. Quite frankly, the word "deity" or "God" does not identify any meaningful concept that I could even consider believing. That's all. [emphasis added]

Perhaps, a definition reference will help resolve this issue for you:

a·the·ist [ ey-thee-ist]

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings --- Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

I submit that your statement (emphasized above) very nearly, exactly fits the definition quoted above. It is, in fact, the statement you… do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it… that makes you an atheist. However, your other statements are in previous posts are not congruent or consistent… in other words, your words are logically contradictory.

"You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it."

I find it interesting the people keep telling me what I "must" do….

The “must do” cited above was not intended as a “command.” Rather, it was an admonition that for your statements (in previous posts) to be logically consistent, certain actions are required to resolve obvious incongruencies in reasoning. I hope this explanation clarified the intent of my comments concerning “must do.”

… Whatever they call it, the so-called "big bang" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Just a guess, like evolution. I do not have to refute, I just don't accept other people's guesses about anything. [emphasis added]

Your assertion is incorrect. The “Big Bang” is, in fact, a fully developed, and widely accepted scientific theory. Perhaps, again, a definition reference will help resolve this issue for you:

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. --- Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

You quoted me: "Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence."

Then wrote: "This method of argument is called 'begging the question.'"

Sigh! No son, it's called defining one's terms. I wasn't making an argument for anything, only telling you what I mean when I use the term, "existence."

Recall that my challenge was not to define existence. Rather, the challenge was to explain existence. Sorry, that challenge was a bit of red hearing in the sense that there already are several well developed branches of philosophy such as existentialism, rationalism, and empiricism that attempt to address this challenge. My purpose was literally to force an admission that existence must be acknowledged thus avoiding Platoic “forms” arguments, etc.

"According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God."

I do not care if you want to believe that. I don't.

Please note that I used the words logically implies. This marks a statement, not of a belief, rather, it is a statement of inference based upon premises and the precepts of logic. Consequently, it is irrelevant if you don’t believe . Your belief, or lack thereof, does not invalidate the logic. Your failure to address a logical argument simply means that you refuse to use reason.

"The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations."

I have no idea what that means. No proof of what? Faith in what?

The point (expanded) is that it is impossible to prove the assertion that God exists. Therefore, asserting that He does exist is a matter of faith. Similarly, (expanded) it is impossible to prove the assertion that God does not, exist. As a result, asserting that He does not exist is, also, a matter of faith. Consequently, atheism, just like, theism and deism, is a faith.

I do not believe their a fairies at the bottom of the garden. Why would that have to be proved? Do you call that "faith?"

It is in fact faith. However, if you don't mind, I'll skip addressing this one in detail. It is subsumed in the other arguments presented.

Is English your first language?

Yes.

Do you believe in a literal Phoenix? So, is that your "faith?"

I have been there many times. Therefore, it is not a matter of faith, but one of knowledge.

You can't prove there is not a Phoenix.

There is a Phoenix. Consequently, I can prove it with a trip to Arizona and direct observation.

"There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc."

Morals are sets of rules intended to govern human behavior. Note that there are no morals for polar bears, sheep, tigers, etc. If human behavior is governed by many different sets of morals, then, logically, there is no such thing as a moral absolute. The citations of different people who behaved in extremely different manners was a illustration of that assertion.

What are you talking about? Moral principles are just absolute as the principles of Chemistry. Does everyone just automatically know the principles of Chemistry? Why would you think people just automatically know moral principles? Most people don't, that is the explanation for the evil in the world. Good grief!

Your assertion is patently false. First, if moral principles were absolutes, there would be no competing systems of morality, e.g., Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Toaism, Buddhism, etc. Likewise, there would be no “moral dilemmas,” leading to a philosophy called “moral relativism.”

Note that there is no “chemical relativism.” If one combines the same elements under the same conditions, the results are always within the same outcome predictions. However, if one combines the same situation conditions under different moral codes, the results are seldom the same. Therefore, your assertion that there are moral absolutes is patently false.

I hope you find my answers interesting, else I'm sorry I wasted your time. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, only expressing my views, for your, or anyone else's consideration.

On the contrary, it is not a waste of my time. I enjoy a debate.

“Perhaps, a definition reference will help resolve this issue for you”

What issue. I don’t have an issue. Call me whatever you like. Call me a Shmoo if you like. (Err..., you might not be old enought to know what those are.) What’s with the labels? I told you what I believe, and couldn’t care less what label you’d like to put on it. Good grief!

“... it is a statement of inference based upon premises ...”

Yes, it is your premises I do not accept.

“Morals are sets of rules intended to govern human behavior.”

No, morals, or better, ethical principles, are the means of determining correct choices, not a collection of prohibitions and admonitions.

Written about the Ten Commandments, but the principles apply to any so-called “moral code.”

http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/phil_gen/religion_ten.php

(I can use it, I wrote it.)

“Your assertion is patently false. First, if moral principles were absolutes, there would be no competing systems of morality ...”

Silly! There were at one time competing views of chemistry, which is the state of moral research today. Just because you and others have not discovered the absolute moral principles does not mean they do not exist, it just means you’re still in the phlogiston stage of moral understanding. You haven’t discovered oxygen yet.

[Have you read the two links I sent in the earlier post. They will help explain this.]

Hank

When the atheist denies God, he omits half of the ratio in his thinking, i.e. objective truth. Therefore, atheism is irrational per se.

Without doubt, dearest sister in Christ! My thinking on this topic FWIW:

The first thing the atheist gets rid of by "killing" God is the idea of universal truth as the measure of human reality. They wish to reduce us to "Pompous" Pilate's question: "What is truth?"; then argue because the problem Pilate addresses is insolulable on the basis of the "scientific method," no legitimate question exists at all. So don't ask it. (Or if you do, we atheists will look down on you with extreme disfavor — as the troglodytic, stupid, knuckle-dragging Dims that you are.)

With an objective universal standard of Truth gone — the most valuable and indispensably important part of the ratio, it seems to me — then all you have to go on is "opinion"; and as everyone knows nowadays (or have been told), one man's opinion is just as good as any other man's. No more and no less.

Of course — here's the fun part — they have deified their own opinion, and all else must worship it — otherwise, there will be lawsuits! (Go figure.... Talk about irrationality.... Or if it's not just irrationality, it is positive evil — The "Reverend" Barry Lynn (Lind?) — a proselytizing atheist for all that he holds himself out as "a man of the cloth" — comes to mind. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing!)

Then we get to the real nitty-gritty: With Truth gone, similarly so is the foundation of the moral order. Morality becomes "relativistic"; that is, each man is liberated to become his own truth-giver in the moral, as well as the intellectual realm.

Such "reasoning" from godless presuppositions is sick; it's absurd; it's irrational; it's insane. It is an abuse of reason.

Moreover, no free civil society can stand very long on such presuppositions. But I digress.

JMHO FWIW.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your as ever "spot-on" essay/post!