h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Speaking of Awe...

Do we know the story about when John Wayne was playing a Roman centurion in 'The Greatest Story Ever Told'? He lelivers his one line:
'Truly this was the son-a-Gahd'.
And the directors says,
'That was great, Duke, but can we try it one more time - only with a little more Awe?'
So John Wayne goes,
'Aww! Truly this was the son-a-Gahd.'

I seem to recall that the example of Hitchens sixty-five 'Lie' that Vicky used was his charge that religion is solipsistic. This is not a lie in the conventional sense, but rather a difference of opinion. As it happens, it's one I agree with. I'm quite prepared to disgree with Hitchens on other matters.

Defending the indefensible, CLZ? Why? Throw out Hitchens, even other atheists admit it's not worth toilet paper!

<>
Hitchens' error was 10 years, read again, carefully.

<>
It goes to Hitchens' accuracy and the amount of care he took, not great it seems!


3. *The first problem is calling it an "error" to "assum[e] that the four Gospels were in any sense a historical record.* Proof otherwise? Oh and look, a grammatical error *an* historical record. Now I know this is not a substantial error, but it does suggest a distressing lack of accuracy...

4. * I don't know of any credible scholar who claims that there is no historically reliable material in the Gospels.* So all atheists are not scholars? Again,

5. *At the end of Chapter 8, I include a list of 33 key facts about Jesus that are found in all four gospels.* How many *facts* apart from them contradict?

6. * (Hitchens would like the Ockham's razor approach of these non-Q-ites!) I happen to believe that something like Q existed.* Gee, THAT seems like a more logical approach!

7. *The biblical imagery of Hell, like biblical imagery associated with the apocalypse, should be read in context. Whatever Hell actually is, it may not be a literal lake of fire.* So it's all about interpretation? It's all imagery? Hot news flash, my interpretation and imagery is in direct conflict with yours. Trouble is, mine is logical and yours isn't.

8. *Though there's an open debate on the dating of the Gospel of Thomas* Hello.

9. *As to the lives "horribly lost" part, this is so fantastic as to be laughable, except I don't think it was meant as a joke by Hitchens.*

*Ever since Jesus first revealed His radical new gospel of knowledge and love, gnostic Christians have been heavily persecuted, first by the Roman Empire and for centuries afterwards by orthodox Christian authorities. This site was created to commemorate our fallen brothers and sisters in the gnosis and to ensure that persecution never returns.*

From:

http://members.tripod.com/~gnostica/

(My very fist google hit of *gnostic persecution*, several dozen hits available)

10. *The most charitable reading I can make of this claim is that the scribes didn't get every word of the New Testament manuscripts correct. But tampering suggests something much more sinister and intentional than this, at least in most cases* Paranoia will destroya. Tampering need not be intentional, it just has to exist.

11. *If Augustus decreed a census in 8 BC, as he claims, it's quite possible that this was the census described in Luke 2, which was not finished in Judea until a year or two later.* It's also quite possible two pairs of my boxer shorts are a size too big but neither supposition relates to any argument presented. Nitpicking does not an argument make.

12. *Indeed, there are four places in Paul's letters where he says something about women that we might find uncomfortable, especially if we fail to consider the context in which Paul was writing and thus read him anachronistically (1 Corinthians 11, 14, 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5). But in none of these chapters is there anything vaguely resembling fear or contempt.* *Uncomfortable* Hmmm ... * the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man* ... *Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection* ... *For the husband is the head of the wife* Hmmmm. How inconvenient to call that *uncomfortable* in our modern enlightened world.

13. *he is simply wrong to say that no "Christian authority" has explained these except in terms of "metaphor" and "a Christ of faith"* Oh, so now there are metaphors? Is that like imagery? An actual Christ and not one of faith alone? So nothing can be taken on strictly face value? I am confused.

14. *Now, let me add, that very few scholars, including conservative Christians, would argue that the Gospels are merely literal truth. They believe there is something more in the text.* More? I thought it wasn't Historical Truth? Is it all metaphors and truth now? So the literal truth supports the metaphors and imagery? Unless the *literal truth* is inconveniently sexist, supports slavery, stoning or transubstantiation? Again,

15. There's lots more there, folks, I'm tired and must go to bed. This idiot would throw out a review of Dr. Suess because of a typo. Have fun, I certainly did.

Defending the indefensible, CLZ? Why? Throw out Hitchens, even other atheists admit it's not worth toilet paper!

<>
Hitchens' error was 10 years, read again, carefully.

<>
It goes to Hitchens' accuracy and the amount of care he took, not great it seems!


<>
I don’t get your point Zoomer… In fact, the way you’ve formatted your post is confusing. It’s not clear which words are Hitchens’, Roberts or yours!


<>

Do all atheists make that claim? If so, I am astounded…

<>

Once again, Zoomer, whatever point you’re making is lost in your confusing syntax.

<>

Once again, your point is?

<>

Ditto. You should have made it much clearer whose words are whose.

<>

Your point is?

<>

Ditto

<<*Ever since Jesus first revealed His radical new gospel of knowledge and love, gnostic Christians have been heavily persecuted, first by the Roman Empire and for centuries afterwards by orthodox Christian authorities. This site was created to commemorate our fallen brothers and sisters in the gnosis and to ensure that persecution never returns.*

From:

http://members.tripod.com/~gnostica/

(My very fist google hit of *gnostic persecution*, several dozen hits available)>>

Oh, and you simply accept it without question? You’d rip anyone to shreds who accepted a Christian site without question – not to mention that your Gnostic site doesn’t answer Roberts’ point, which was about lives lost in determining which gospels are canon…

<>

I take it the last words are yours. Your point is however lost by your attempted witticism.

<>

Oh come on, Zoomer! He’s got you and asinine remarks about your underwear don’t change that!

<>

Thanks to Giford’s constant nit-picking, I’ve dealt with that 10000s of times. Why do *you* care?

<>

You’re not confused, you're playing with words.

<>

Ditto.

<>

Silly. Hitchens is creamed and if you were honest enough to admit it, you’df be better off…

Vicky
(I don't know what went wrong with copy-and-paste the first time...)

That's all truly fascinating Vicky...



As an aside could you tell me where *kissing* belongs in the sex scale that is allowed outside of marriage? I've been meaning to ask you or any other Christian this for a while. Passionate kissing is frequently shown in even fairly old fashioned films which don't show anything like sex as we would normally describe it.

It is just that personally I find it very erotic and sexual and pleasurable. But maybe that's just me?

So is kissing considered sex or not sex from a Christian perspective?

That's an interesting question, Effers, and I don't really know if there's a Christian position on kissing. (I know it's not allowed in Bollywood, and Richard Gere and Shilpah Shetty (sp?) ended up threatened with prosecution for kissing at an awards show...)


My own view would be that it's mostly harmless, unless it might lead to something not good - say for instance I succumbed to temptation, kissed a married man, succumbed to a *bit more* temptation and ended up "doing the do" * as a friend of mine on Fantascienza put it. (That's probably 80% of her English! )

Have you heard of the Christian group who object to sex, because it might lead to dancing?

Vicky

*She was referring to "doing the do" with a squirrel or similar, long story!

>I don't really know if there's a Christian position on kissing.< Vicky



I think experimenting might be the best way to find out...

I think I like the sound of this thing you call 'temptation', Vicky.

<>

Well, you know Oscar Wilde's saying on the subject? "I can resist anything but temptation"... Clever guy!

My favourite - a news item on TV last night reminded me of it. Asked if he a woman who had recently bveen widowed, he said "Yes, I hear her hair has gone quite gold from grief"... (A certain famous widow being interviewed about her famous husband, occasioned the unkind thought... )

Vicky

*Hitchens' error was 10 years, read again, carefully. * Read again carefully yourself, the point was that the time frame of 2000 years from the birth of Christ was incorrect, it matters not that it was 10 years or 2 years or 4 years. It was incorrect.


*It goes to Hitchens' accuracy and the amount of care he took, not great it seems!* An error as to a man's name makes an argument about your religion's fallaciousness?? Nit picking to the extreme it would seem.


*I don’t get your point Zoomer* I can see that, I can see that you can't see any point but your own. My point was (and it's zoomer, not Zoomer) that grammatical errors or differences of opinion don't make a fig's difference to an argument any more than spelling errors or minor points of regional differences. I see no spelling errors or grammatical problems with the bible but I sure as hell am not going to stone my family for the ridiculous *transgressions* it lists. Plan on going on a homosexual killing spree? *If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13 Leviticus* Any spelling errors or grammatical mistakes you can see with that one? Do I have to explain irony to you or should I get a male to explain it, after all they are your superiors according to your bible.


*Do all atheists make that claim? If so, I am astounded… * Are you blind? Can you not see the nose in front of your face? ROBERTS said that- your so called *expert*. He said he know of no credible scholar would make that claim, thus saying no atheist who has is either credible or a scholar. Honestly, Vickster, you amaze me with your simplistic view. Should we go over the sentences syllable by syllable?


*Once again, Zoomer, whatever point you’re making is lost in your confusing syntax.* I guess I do have to explain it slowly. Pay attention and don't use your fingers or try to talk along with the text. *At the end of Chapter 8, I include a list of 33 key facts about Jesus that are found in all four gospels.* OK, Roberts has 33 things (unlisted and unexplained) he believes are *key* facts about Jesus that are found in all four gospels. I said *How many *facts* apart from them contradict?* Which means, how many *facts* mentioned in the gospels are contradictory? Stuff like *1 Samuel 12:24 Fear the Lord.* and *1 John 4:8 God is Love.* or *Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war.* and *1 Corinthians 14:33 God is not the author of confusion but of peace.* There are dozens and dozens of examples of these contradictions, from the ridiculous to the profoundly disturbing. Many, many more than *33 key facts*. The point is that the whole damn thing is full of contradiction and misdirection.


*Once again, your point is?* (#6) Despite the fact that he misspelled Occam's razor (again * a distressing lack of accuracy*), you honestly can't see why his *belief* should be viewed with more enthusiasm than an established mode of logical progression?


*You should have made it much clearer whose words are whose.* For future reference, those words surrounded by asterisks (used instead of quotation marks due to the limitations of the net) are words by other people or otherwise replacing quotation marks. When quoting an article they are the words of the person who wrote the article and a simple skim of the article itself will find the quote referred too. Really Delcky, you should pay more attention.


**Though there's an open debate on the dating of the Gospel of Thomas* Hello.* Subtlety really isn't your strong point, is it? It's an open debate, therefore nothing is settled yet and may never be, so neither side can state with complete accuracy as to the dating. Clear enough? Neither side.


*Paranoia will destroya. Tampering need not be intentional, it just has to exist.*(me)
*I take it the last words are yours. Your point is however lost by your attempted witticism.*(you)
Tampering....need...not...be...intentional...to...cause...errors. The errors exist. Errors in the *word of god*. Get it?


*Oh come on, Zoomer!*
His supposition that a census MIGHT have existed is no more relevant than a comment about my underwear. See? Get it? Relevance. Possibilities. No proof, just supposition.


*Why do *you* care?* I've got three daughters and numerous female friends. If they were treated like Paul exhorts us to treat them, I think I would be almost happy to stone those who would follow his advice. Like what it tells us to do to women who have violated the biblical *laws*. And Paul is mild compared to the horrible misogynist poop the rest of the bible tries to lay on us.

*You’re not confused, you're playing with words.* No, I'm just being all ironical all on your @zz.


*Ditto. *


*Silly. Hitchens is creamed and if you were honest enough to admit it, you’df be better off…* I'm sorry, are the marshmallow pies green in your diamond skies? Creamed? Did you leave the wrong link? Roberts was trying to make unsubstantial points, attempting to cover his thorough thrashing. Spelling errors? I have several points about the bible that contradict your hundreds? Paranoia? Estimates of years that don't win the original argument? Outright misdirection? Pah! The man is a whipped dog.

Hi Vicky, zoomer,

>Thanks to Giford’s constant nit-picking, I’ve dealt with that 10000s of times.

Take not my name in vain, lest I descend upon thee with great anger and furious vengeance

An example of my 'constant nit-picking' would be that I insist on making a distinction between 'dealing with' a point and 'ignoring' it. We went through a long loop on this. Paul clearly does say some very sexist things, and although you have insisted that they only applied in a certain time and place you have not been able to explain why you think that - except for your sense of 'sanctified common sense', which turned out to mean your belief that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Remember?

That said, Roberts is correct that Hitchens makes a series of sloppy mistakes, a few of which undermine the point Hitchens is trying to make. However, Roberts also makes a series of sloppy mistakes in his 'corrections' which in turn frequently undermine Roberts' points.

For example, while Hitchens is wrong to say that Augustus didn't command a census - we know he did - Roberts is equally wrong to claim that this could have been at the time of Jesus' birth as described by Matthew, since direct Roman rule of Judea was not imposed until 6 AD. Furthermore, censuses at this time were only of Roman citizens, and did not require people to return to their ancestral home (why would they?), which clashes with Luke's account. So Hitchens and Roberts both get their facts wrong, but Hitchens comes to the only possible correct conclusion (probably because he is relying on the opinions of others who understand the facts better than he does).

Gif

I think this thread is crying out for prayer

So, without further adieu ...



Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness.
Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit.
I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony.
Amen.

Madrak's Prayer, From 'Creatures of Light and Darkness', by Roger Zelazny

Hitchens...I totally agree that he might not make an unimpeachable, scripturally sound case on the cohesion and historicity of The Bible. Myself, I think it's a mug's game to take believers on in their own territory. (Hello, . ) But that's not his point is it? All he's attempting to do is to show that there's sufficient internal doubt *amongst believers themselves* to show that any definitive arguments about The Bible can be discounted.

Myself - I'm not very interested in The Bible. I much prefer it when Hitchens gets to the underlying point that religion is, firsly, intellectually insupportable and, secondly, a damn poor basis for morality. Does our ability or inability to pinpoint exactly the birthdate of a putative historical figure affect these? Only if we're prepared to accept without evidence that he was the son of god, etc. etc.

I'll be the first to admit that Hitchens didn't bolster my own Atheism. His arguments are unnecessary to my own case. I just thought it was a rather good example of polemic.



>>Despite the fact that he misspelled Occam's razor

How does Hitchens spell it, out of interest? 'Occam' is the usual Latinisation of 'Ockham', but various other spellings have been used and are acceptable.

I'm reminded of TE Lawrence's correspondence with his editor over 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom.'
'On page 145, you've mentioned the place al-Fighar. Is this the same as al-Figar on page 203.'
'Yes. And I could also have spellt it al-Fiqur, al-Fiker, al-Fiqaa...&c'
'You have three different spellings of Abdullah'
'Jolly goood!'

That said...Lawrence couldn't be trusted on much.

>>As an aside could you tell me where *kissing* belongs in the sex scale that is allowed outside of marriage?

As a former President of the United States of America said,
'It depends on how you define sex.'

The only case that I can see that Hitchens really successfully makes is that religion can cause people to act immorally. Since some people use the (claimed) existence of a divine morality as evidence for the existence of God, he very successfully undercuts one line of argument for the existence of God. Hitchens shows in a comprehensive and occasionally witty style that this cannot be the case.

But it looks to me like he's trying to go further and say that religion *always* leads to immorality and/or that religion never leads to moral behaviour and/or that religion has no positive aspects. He fails to make those cases.

As to taking on the religious re their scripture - when it's as easy to do as it is with the Bible, I just find it bizarre how much twisting theists will do to vindicate their beliefs. Case in point: Vicky still denies that Paul was sexist, despite all his commandments about how women should behave.

Gif

>>Have you heard of the Christian group who object to sex, because it might lead to dancing?

It's usually said of The Free Church of Scotland (The 'Wee Frees'). But also of Rev Dr Paisley's Free Presbyterians (no relation).

The irony was when The FPs campaigned against unlicenced Line Dancing in Northern Ireland a few years ago. They said that Line Dancing classes were being held on premises which didn't have entertainment licences. It was purely coincidental that these were also Catholic church social clubs and the classes were church fundraisers.

>>But it looks to me like he's trying to go further and say that religion *always* leads to immorality and/or that religion never leads to moral behaviour and/or that religion has no positive aspects. He fails to make those cases

He may overdo that...but I think he'd allow that there are good religious people. He probably overdoes it by implying that MLK wasn't inspired by religion - he clearly was, even though religion was *not* the sole or even principal driving force of the Civil Rights movement. But the subtitle is apt: 'Religion poisons everything'. Whenever there are people doing good within a religion, that's not enough for some. They want to dress it up with mumbo-jumbo which at best is irrelevant to the human good and at worst takes on such a life of its own that bad can result as often as good.

But, hey, it's not like Hitchens (or Dawkins) are infallible prophets.

Incidentally...I saw a quote recently (I forget where) which refered to 'Rabid anti-theists such as Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett'. The first two...agreed. But *Dennett*? I've not seen anything from him that would count as rabid.

I think Dawkins is at pains to point out how un-rabid he is as well. Hitchens fits the 'rabid' stereotype pretty well, but yes, you'd have to look pretty hard to find someone with more of an academic-style interest than Dennett.

I suspect it suits the religious to label all atheists as 'rabid' rather than try to engage with them on an evidential level.

Gif

I still have a soft spot for Hitchens, because he's a provocateur. He certainly provokes me on politics. You should see me spitting fury at him when I read his columns!

Coincidentally...

The Hitch on MLK:
http://www.slate.com/id/2188414/
With a namecheck for my own hero, Bayard Rustin.