My original blog topic was vaguely just on the debate on the validity of the existence of God, but I have actually focused all my blogs so far on Christopher Hitchens’ (a notable anti-theist) perspectives, findings, conclusions, and debates.

This most recent summer, Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer (he has smoked most of his life).  Because of his presence in atheist culture, Hitchens’ illness has sparked much controversy.  Many followers of various faiths see his disease as God’s way of punishing him for his career built on blasphemizing God.  He is after all, the author who wrote “god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”   One particular interesting facet of this belief is the common idea that god chose to give Hitchens cancer of the esophagus (the tube in the throat leading from the back of the mouth or pharynx down to the stomach) as a way of targeting where or what he used to speak out against religion.  I thought this was interesting because with the exception of burping, the esophagus plays no role in speech.  Parallel to the esophagus is the trachea, the windpipe leading down from the pharynx to the lungs.  The pharynx separates at a point called the epiglottis, which is a flap that covers either the trachea while swallowing or the esophagus while speaking.  The vocal cords are located at the top of the trachea.  My point here is to put forth an example of how the believers disregard fact (the science and anatomy behind their claims) to try and create a truth in their own minds in favor of their beliefs.  This is, in Hitchens’ opinion, the focal point in the religious argument at which the logical fallacy is made.

By that, I mean Hitchens says that the reason why avid believers create false conclusions is because they base those conclusions on false premises.  Assuming that the bible (or any religious scripture) is full of false premises, any belief in any faith is basically a foundation of values which someone thousands of years ago wrote that everyone should follow or go to Hell forever.

So, because Hitchens does not believe in god, he will allegedly go to Hell after he dies.  This article is Hitchens’ own perspective of how so many people are “praying for him.”  When bringing up the idea of his full recovery, Hitchens wondered if that would be seen by the religious followers “praying for him” as those prayers being answered.  In his own words, “That would somehow be irritating.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/10/hitchens-201010

Writing for: Youtube, imitating no particular blogger

Does God exist?: Debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens

            During the debate, member s of the audience asked William Lane Craig (Christian) and Christopher Hitchens (Anti-Theist) to explain a few debatable topics about what proves or disproves the existence of God.  During one particular segment, Craig brings up the idea that Jesus came to Earth at the perfect time, that the bulk of all history’s human population came immediately after Christ spread Christianity.  He claims that 2 percent of all humans whom have ever existed lived prior to Christ’s life for the past several thousand years, and the other 87% after, when God knew would be the best time to harvest his faith in the people because the ideas would grow rapidly.

His logic however, is flawed.  One cannot say that Christ’s presence at that time was at the base of a major population boom.   In fact, it is proven that 93% of all the world’s population throughout history lived during and after the Industrial Revolution, over one and a half millennia AFTER Christ.  In that regard, God’s timing for placing Christ on Earth was NOT perfect.

After one segment when Craig says that his beliefs do not PROVE God’s existence (rather, they just present “the most probably hypothesis” out there), Hitchens counters with a quote directly from Craig’s book, saying that should a conflict arise between a theory based on faith and a theory based on anything else, the former would take precedence over the other.

Although Craig clearly lost a few points of critical logic, he was able to come up with questions to which Hitchens did not know how to answer.  To answer some of Craig’s questions, Hitchens had to base his arguments on his own established idea that God doesn’t exist, therefore, the audience favored Craig in the end.  It just goes to prove, although the theist side of this argument makes loops of contradiction and unsteady interpretation around itself, once a follower of faith hides behind a curtain of personal uncertainty but FAITH that the answers reside in someone else (namely God, or his extension in Jesus), they can attain the common support.

            In our world where atheism and anti-theism is becoming more prevalent, there may eventually be a time when the theist point of view will no longer dominate the debate based on followers.