An atheist who goes by the moniker alphacause, in referring to Christopher Hitchen’s comments in a video says,
“Hitchens is correct that if we were to grant every miracle surrounding Jesus’ existence, it still doesn’t follow that everything Jesus said was true, nor does it prove that he was God. It doesn’t prove that one must believe in him to go to heaven. It doesn’t logically follow that any of the moral propositions of Christianity are true. If it were ever to be proven that all the miracles ascribed to Jesus did happen, it would at most, prove that he was an aberration of nature and NOTHING MORE!”
Chris Hitchens has said some profoundly stupid things in the past but alcohol induced dementia must really be setting in for him to make these comments. Jesus Himself said, “You don’t need to believe that I Am God because I say that I Am God. But you should believe that I Am who I say that I Am because of the things that I do.” Why? Because, if this was not trickery, then Jesus was manipulating nature in a way that could only be done by the Creator of nature.
Jesus said that His miracles were to serve one main purpose - to prove that He was God incarnate. “If you have seen Me, you have seen God.”
People of the time may not have had the amount of knowledge that we possess today, but they certainly knew that virgins don’t naturally conceive children. They knew that diseases don’t naturally leave a body at the command of another person. They knew that dead people do not naturally rise from the dead. They knew that a normal human does not have the right nor the power to forgive the sins that you and I commit against another human. Even Jesus’ enemies acknowledged that Jesus was doing things that could not naturally be explained.
Of course, Hitchens is correct that even if Jesus' miracles were the real deal, it doesn’t “prove” that what He said is true. After all, Christophe Hitchens agrees wholeheartedly with Dawkins that [The Christian God is] “Arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Oh, and He's also a liar.
On the other hand, from my side of the fence, if the miracles prove that Jesus was God, then I for one am willing to take what God tells me as truth and not lies. If God says the things that Jesus said about salvation, then I for one am going to accept those conditions as true. If it was proven that all the miracles ascribed to Jesus were true, it would not prove an aberration of nature, it would prove that the supernatural is real. It would explain not an aberration of nature but that something totally OTHER than nature took place on earth 2,000 years ago.
If Hithchens can’t see that, then atheists really are to be pitied for their bigotry and bias.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So basically what hitchens is saying is that if there was a boy named Peter pan who could actually fly, that wouldn't prove the existance of 'never never land'. A statement like this isn't really important enough to highlight, but I'll throw in my two cents for good measure...
ReplyDeleteAs far as my opinion? On a very skeptical and technical level it's true that we couldn't know for sure whether 'never-never land' existed, but Peter pan's ability to fly would certainly help the plausibility of his claim. I agree that if we could prove one supernatural event, then the possibility of other supernatural events is plausible. I don't think, however that we should so quickly dismiss the point hitchens is attempting to make, which is that it would take an awful lot to prove the amazing claims of the supernatural implications of heaven and eternal life. It's difficult to imagine a way to prove such ideas as fact on a level that we proveother things on.
It isn't stupid to understand that if you could prove that a human could magically fly it does not automatically follow that humans are telepathic as well. Could flying be a mechanism in a 'machine of supernatural' by which anything else that SEEMS beyond the natural is a component? It would be difficult to understand something supernatural as it resists a natural place in a physical construct where everything has a place. But we do not observe the supernatural. We don't need to find a place for it, it isn't there. If Jesus utilized supernatural miracles to "prove" to the world that he is as he claims, then why stop 2000 years ago? Why grant the luxury of audience to such a particular and specific tribe of humans and then go out of your way to deny such a large remainder?
ReplyDeleteWell at least, Thesauros did present Hitchen's point of view correctly. So, for once, Thesauros is NOT misrepresenting and Atheist, and Atheists in general because I guess we will mostly agree on what has been written here...
ReplyDeleteIt's not the first time I hear this idea, and I thought about it myself many times, in so many different ways...
If someone were to come to me tomorrow, and perform some awesome magic tricks, healing the sick, walking on water, etc... and then, if that same person were to claim 'See! I can do all this! I am God! there is an afterlife! Repent! or else!' hum... no, I would not be convinced. It would just look to me as a freaking good magician who has a crazy fetish for the supernatural.
Jesus' story is a bit different of course, because it is not only what he supposedly did that was so special but the context surrounding him and events that were completely out of his control, like his birth and resurection, which could not be direct magic tricks.
But at the same time, there is nothing to suggest that because these things happen, which of course I will never believe they did happen, that Jesus was God or that there is an afterlife.
The human brain is more understood than ever before, and the more we learn about it the more we realize how it is related to the physical body and nothing else.
Some people see that as a bad thing, removing meaning to life. I see it the complete other way. That makes life so freaking precious, so awesome, so wonderful. It is so incredible that we can even figure that out. We're just small humans who, over the years, worked together in other to improve our abilities and knowledge. We are now face to face with our own origins, our real causes of existence, and I find it marvelous.
Unfortunately, for sooooo many people, it's the complete opposite. An afterlife seems to be the only thing that can give this current real life meaning. Oh well... maybe in a few hundreds years people will change their mind, but I won't be here to see it! dammit...
Why would I never believe in a virgin birth, miracles, or resuraction by the way?
ReplyDeleteWe already discussed that many ntimes but we can never be clear enough about it...
BECAUSE THE ONLY EVIDENCE CHRISTIANS HAVE IS A FUCKING BOOK!!! SHOW ME REAL EVIDENCE!! NOT ONLY A BOOK!
Jesus said, "Even when I rise from the dead, many of you will refuse to believe."
ReplyDeleteEven if, as you read this Hugo, Jesus appeared right beside you, you'd come up with a natural explanation for it. You have too.
If Jesus were to appear right next to me, it would be a bit more convincing than a book...
ReplyDeleteEven if it were to happen though, why should I listen to that person that just appeared next to me? How would I know that it's really Jesus? Why would what that person say about an afterlife be meaningful? What's the link between appearing out of thin air and being God?
You know that many, probably most believers, are honest enough to say 'I have faith, not evidence'. Why don't you ever do that? You only claim that you have faith when you find "evidence" that support your faith.
Believing in a god is not a bad thing per se, it's the way you present it which is. It's the way you depict other people's views that is disgusting. It's your dishonesty that we attack here...
Thanks for proving my point once more by saying that I HAVE to believe something, as if you knew how I think and what I believe and why. You are so clueless that I feel shameful for you.
If you want to maintain the atheist premis that the supernatural does not exist you have to maintain that Jesus suddenly appearing beside does not have a supernatural explanation.
ReplyDeletemaintain the atheist premis that the supernatural does not exist
ReplyDeleteThe fact that I never claim such thing is irrelevant of course, right?
I don't know if the supernatural exists. I don't even know what it fucking means, because you have no way to describe it, explain it, prove it. You just claim it exists.
- I cannot say it does not.
- You pretend that it does.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof.
Or perhaps I misunderstood you. There is evidence that supernatural events took place? eveidence that there is an outside universe beside our real world? evidence that my counsciousness is more than the product of my brain?
I wish it were true you know... why would I want my existence to end at death? What benefits do I get from that?
You don't know what the term "supernatural" means?
ReplyDeleteIt means "magic"
ReplyDeleteYOU, Thesauros, don't know what the term supernatural means. And I can prove it:
ReplyDeleteGive me an example of a supernatural event, and I will show you how it must have been natural...