Hitchens Versus the Christians

what the heck is a “chologetic”?

Will this be available to see online? I loved Hitchens matchup against the Rabbi at the 92nd St Y about a year ago. That was online but it was the Y’s own website I think.

Banners are usually designed to advertise what you have been searching.

Chologetics must be another made up word to make them sound credible.

Vegas wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole, because in debates there’s hardly ever a clear winner. Everybody walks away with their biases confirmed.

These things are depressingly predictable. Hitchens will utterly disassemble every one of the apologists’ arguments, yet the audience, consisting mostly of Texas Christians will walk away thinking the apologists “won.” The apologists may be able to privately appreciate that their arguments were logically reduced to rubble, but they also will still think they “won” simply because they did not emerge from the debate as atheists.

Hitchens’ arguments require you to use your prefrontal cortex. Apologists’ arguments require you to relax your analytical mind and just enjoy the pleasurable sensations of being reassured that Mommy and Daddy were right. That takes place in much older and more powerful parts of the brain.

I wonder what the odds on this panel would be in Las Vegas…

I’d say the odds of any Christian leaving that room with any new doubt planted in their mind are less than the odds that they will be struck on the back of the head by a small meteorite as they leave the Expo.

Doubt is a seed that can take a heck of a long time to germinate. I’d heard atheist arguments from the mid 1970s and they really didn’t stick until the 1990s or so.

Now I am disgusted that I ever gave any credence to those superstitions.

Anyway, that is the effect that Hitchens might have with a handful of the theists who will be there.

They aren’t going to go straight home and throw away their Bibles, but there might be a teeny tiny bit of doubt that germinates.

It depends…we know that some seeds fall on rocky ground, some fall on shallow ground and some fall on rich ground where they yield a good harvest. 🙂

I’m going to be there, and I’m also going to be recording an episode of Apologia with some of my theist and atheist colleagues immediately following the panel.

I should expand on my previous comment: I don’t think debates like these are pointless or anything. They are if you wish to reach the diehard believers, but they’re very persuasive to people (like, say, me five years ago) who are exploring, searching, on the fence – anybody who hasn’t got their mind made up yet.

Hitchen’s can handle four Christians even when he’s drunk off his ass.

And probably will be.

Chologetics? Is that short for Christian apologetics?

I read Hitchens’ stuff all the time. The guy is a genius.

As a former journalist myself, I can appreciate him even more.

Chologetics appears to be a typo (probably Ch[ristian ap]ologetics). But I had to google it to be sure – the four hits are two on this site and two versions of the original linked article.

Then again, I was sure ‘baraminology’ was a joke. Apologists striving for a veneer of legitimacy seems to be pretty common.

Ha! I just want to point out that anyone who states that faith is reasonable is 1) an idiot and 2) completely ignorant as to the definition of the word faith. A simple grazing of Webster’s will show you that faith is the belief in things not based in proof and that the presence of proof entirely alleviates faith of it’s power. As the majority of christians do not understand this concept in the least this argument will once again show that christians are more interested in converting people to the religion that they follow blindly than actually studying what it is they so strongly stand behind.

Thanks for the link Hemant. I saw a volunteering link so I asked what I could do to volunteer in setting up for Christopher Hitchens and clean up if needed. If that warrants a better entrance fee let me know.

http://www.christianbookexpo.com/authors/collision.php

Given what I’ve heard theists say about previous debates where Hitchens mopped the floor with an apologist, they’ll say he lost. They always say that, even when their guy makes asses out of all of them.

For a bunch calling itself “Friendly Athiests”, you can be quite pugnacious and arrogant. Which is how Hitchens will show himself to be at Expo. Drunk or not.

Oh snaps, ollie busted out the sower and the seed parable!

No, all the people calling the other side idiots *have* heard that side.

Hence the value judgment.

Or do you think Wilson will have some startling new evidence never before disclosed? Unless he does, he’ll just trot out all the same tired apologetics, arguments from incredulity, appeals to the mob, and other logical fallacies that side uses.

If it were possible Hitchens should really debate David Hume. I realize Hume is long since dead, but I think it will take Hume himself to get Hitchens to actually address Hume’s is ought problem, but who am i kidding, Hitchens doesn’t eve want to go there.

More of the Angry Atheist stereotype. This is fun!

I like how the fact that we have feelings means there must be a god. That makes complete sense. Certainly biochemistry has nothing to do with it.

And I’ve never heard a believer call an atheist an idiot. Especially on fox news. Talk about some angry Christians!

I also love how Christians can be as vocal and obnoxious about their faith as they want to be, but as soon as an atheist says, “i don’t believe in your fairy tale” s/he is described as angry.

@ “Friendly Xtian”: eventually, you may find that the pain of focusing on logical thought and fact is less than that of the pain of apologetics…or not. It takes real effort to discern anything in the world. Live in that graceful “la-la” if you want to. It really is a sad place, based on my view of “cold, hard reality”. Seeing as how that is how the world really is. Don’t mistake yourself that a real atheist is going to “regret and repent” on his deathbed. Stay with your acceptance of the beauty of the rainbow without the physical understanding of what happens to the light when it penetrates, refracts and reflects. There is far more beauty in that view than you might imagine.

Love how atheists are faster than a speeding bullet with the ad hominem attacks and self-congratulatory remarks of victory before the game even begins. Nice! I’m sure all parties will be cordial and polite with few sparks flying! Maybe some sparks!

@friendly Christian: “If we are all merely physical beings and I am a collection of atoms bumping off of each other…”

Why does meaninglessness follow from naturalism? Why predicate your caring for someone on their being made out of supernatural stuff? Pets don’t have souls according to most forms of Christianity, but I haven’t met a Christian family that didn’t care about the well being of the family dog or pet bunny.

I think the “Friendly Christian” had an interesting experience here.

He comes in assuming Jake is an atheist. Just goes to show you that listening first, asking questions and engaging is not a bad way to go.

Friendly Christian, you said:

You are a creature in rebellion against your Creator so you will see things through an unbelieving lens.

First off, way to assess us without talking to us first. Not a promising start. It does not bode well for a respectful conversation. You complain of “discrediting your opponent before he speaks”, but is that not what you just did? Did you enter into this discussion already convinced we are in a state of rebellion?

Second off, the statement is nonsensical. How can I be in a state of rebellion against an entity I do not believe exists? It’s a self-contradictory sentence.

Instead of attempting to rephrase or clarify your assertion, how about you chill out from the assertions and ask some questions? How about a deal: I don’t tell you what you supposedly believe, you do the same for me? It’s about asking, not about telling, and not about arguing strawmen.

Usually their hearts and minds have been hardened throughout the years. Do you enjoy sunsets? Or do you insist that we call them an earth rotation and light refracting through the atmosphere?

Okay, seriously, why the hate? What the hell are we to you? Robots?

You’ve got to ask yourself, FC, why did you come here? Are you building walls or bridges? Are you here to gain any understanding of other human beings at all? Or are you here to preach and leave? Post and feel smug and superior and leave? Pick an online fight and leave?

Because you’re just a wall-builder here so far. We need bridge-builders, because the walls are already too high.

Why should you even care if “Christian” atoms “believe” in a Creator?

Um…. because people are important to me, because I am a person. People don’t need to be magical to make them worth caring about. I’m a people, you’re a people, so I care about you.

Calling someone a stack of atoms (while essentially true) is also monumentally false. If it’s all “just atoms”, then you won’t mind eating a pile of shit, right? Oh, no? Is it because the shit has a soul from God? No. It’s because it’s not “just atoms”. The arrangement of the atoms actually matters! A pile of sugar isn’t the same as a pile of gold or a pile of shit, and only a philosopher enamored of his own logic lapses can’t tell the difference or needs to posit that the gold or the sugar or the shit or the human being are only differentiated by a magical ghost living inside them.

A dog or a donkey knows the difference between sugar and shit. Guess, what, so do atheists. In all my life I’ve only heard the religious argue that without a ghost, it’s all just atoms. If a philosopher can’t tell the difference between sugar and shit, I’ll make a dog my guru. The dog knows it ain’t just atoms.

FC, I STRONGLY suggest you take a breather, then come back when you’re willing to try a different tack. Come back when you don’t have to prove how big a man you are, or how better you are than us. Come back when you want to understand how someone different than you thinks about things. Come back with some ears to hear us, and some questions to share with us.

The world is a wonderful place full of people with different ideas and different beliefs. How lucky that we share it with each other. How blessed are we that we get to learn from each other! What joy there is in life itself! Do not fear or pity us, for we taste the sweet nectar of life in all its fleeting, fragile beauty. We dance in the light of the flickering, all too brief candle. We experience love, and beauty and hope and friendship and death and sorrow and pain just as you do. We do not fear life, nor does knowing of its end diminish our relish of it. On the contrary! It makes it all the sweeter for its imminent vanishing. Dance! The light is almost out!

Come back knowing that we are people, and you should treat us better. Not because we believe exactly what you do, but merely because we ask it, and you are human just as we are. Someday one of us may save your life. An atheist may have given the blood that saved your sister. Someone here might have built your house, or taught your child to read.

Come back and treat us as you would have us treat you.

But please come back.

Hi friendly Christian,

I like your name, and I’ll take it to heart.

I think it’s unfortunate when people call others idiots, even when they are acting like idiots, mostly because it just makes matters worse. When people hear others calling them idiots, they get angry and defensive. Blood diverted to the emotional centers of their brains is not going to their frontal lobes, so they are less capable of thinking clearly. They’re more likely to continue to act like idiots. So unless we like being surrounded by idiots, which I do not, we should stop calling others that and try to encourage them to think clearly and carefully.

I haven’t heard or read every single apologist in the world, but I’ve heard enough so that long ago their arguments stopped being new. It got to be so disappointing to hear them repeat the same old fallacies and canards that I finally lost interest. It was kind of sad, because they would deliver them with an eager fervor that one would expect if they had a brand new idea that had never been poked full of holes by a simple logical analysis.

For instance, your questions about all of us just being atoms and so forth sound like a familiar one called Argument from Purpose. If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that without your god our lives have no purpose, and so caring about such things as a controversy between theists and atheists would have no point.

The point is that most atheists do not spend much time at all objecting to a concept of a god. They spend most of their time objecting to the real behaviors of real people who believe in a god and think that they are justified by their god to impose their narrow views upon others, taking away their civil rights, insinuating their theology into science, public education, public policy and private lives, and shunning, slandering, abusing, firing, beating and killing anyone who dares to disagree with them. That is the point. That is why it matters.

You ask “Why the hate?” You’ll understand if you realize it’s not about hate, it’s about hurt. Rational people are not cold and strictly analytical. They care very much about the world and about people, and they hurt deeply to see what irrational people do in the name of their beliefs. Mind you, I don’t automatically lump you in with those who are abusive and ruthless; you just have the same beliefs. You’re the friendly Christian, and I’m glad to meet you. I know a few others like you.

We “collections of atoms” invent our own purposes and meanings for our lives, and you might be surprised that they are not so different from those that probably enrich your life: Love of our families and friends, desire to alleviate the suffering of others as well as ourselves, interest in helping society to be both just and prosperous, interest in learning.

You tell us “You are a creature in rebellion against your Creator so you will see things through an unbelieving lens.” Here is another familiar fallacy. It’s a circular, begging-the-question kind of thing. If I am understanding your statement, you seem to be assuming that we secretly do believe in your god and we are rebelling against it. No, just try to accept the reality that we really don’t believe in it. We can’t rebel against something we don’t believe in. We don’t believe in it simply because we need evidence to believe in claims, especially fantastic, amazing claims.

friendly Christian, if you are actually friendly, and I’m assuming you are, then please respect us enough to not tell us what we think, feel and do. Ask us what we think, feel and do.

Hi Mr Wade

Not all Christians are reasonable, but many people are Christians because of the evidence.

Christians object to the concept of no god because they understand the terrible consequences of the concept in the lives of real people. Many also understand that the morality of modern western atheism is not the product of human reason or pragmatism but capital stolen from Christianity. The greatest culture in history, and modern science, resulted from Christianity and its effect on culture. Is that not evidence?

The rest of your paragraph definitely cuts both ways, thus:

“Christians spend most of their time objecting to the real behaviors of real people who have no objective basis for morality and think that they are justified by their philosophy to impose their limited, subjective views upon others, taking away their civil rights, insinuating their philosophy into science, public education, public policy and private lives, and shunning, slandering, abusing, firing, beating and killing anyone who dares to disagree with them.”

Seen Expelled? Actually, seen the 20th century? I guess it depends what you think is true, hey? Both sides think the other is delusional, but atheism has the higher body count by far. These new atheists and their tired old (answered) arguments are like a doctor prescribing thalidomide today and touting its benefits.

But perhaps the 100 million or more slaughtered in the 20th century are not ‘evidence’ for the dangers of applied, consistent atheism.

I don’t believe in evolution because so far, after nearly 30 years of me waiting, reading, studying, atheists have failed to come up with evidence to convince me of their fantastic, amazing claims that boil down to ‘Enuma Elish’ in a veneer of science. And when challenged they pull rank or resort to ridicule. They too repeat the same old fallacies and canards, and insist on including them as proven facts in textbooks for gullible children.

I have read highly qualified scientists who point out the holes, baseless foundational assumptions, circular reasoning and logical fallacies in evolutionary theory. Am I unreasonable for not believing it? I see breathtaking beauty and astounding design in nature. Is this merely a subjective response, or is it actually evidence? Could not your interpretation of that beautiful fossil you are holding be a subjective response based on unproved assumptions? That’s how I see it.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett called Darwinism a universal acid that ‘eats through virtually every traditional concept’—mankind’s most cherished beliefs about God, value, meaning, purpose, culture, morality—everything. That is evidence.

As the west turns its back on Christianity, we need more and more legislation because people are less and less self-governing. Looks like we are sinners to me. That is quite reasonable ‘evidence’ for the truth of the Bible.

What I see in the world around me doesn’t prove the Bible, but neither does it contradict it. I don’t switch off my brain, and neither does Wilson.

The impression I got from the first Wilson/Hitchens debate was that Hitchens really didn’t get the depths of Wilson’s arguments. Hitchens was thowing rocks at Wilson’s windows while Wilson was pointing out that Hitchens’ house has no foundation.

In the pub debate, Hitchens also made the mistake of challenging Wilson with the claim that Jesus was wrong about the time of his ‘coming.’ After Wilson’s response, you could have heard a pin drop. Hitchens refrained from challenges using the Bible after that. Atheists make a lot of ignorant claims, too. Even the smart ones.

But these gentlemen did hit it off when they discovered a mutual appreciation for P. G. Wodehouse. If the debate was down to natural selection, neither of them looks particularly fit. But they are both very intelligent, reasonable and witty, which for me is also evidence for the God of the Book. And it would be a privilege to attend if I could.

With respect to you all,
Mike Bull

Seen Expelled?

Yes, I saw Expelled. It was a horrid stinking chunk of revisionist dreck. have you seen the reviews of Expelled? Such as this one by Roger Ebert? Have you checked the distortions and falsehoods in the movie catalogued at Expelled Exposed?

Folks, I know we’ve got some friendly Christians here… can they do some lifting for us atheists when one of their tribe comes in here thinking “Expelled” is a good and reliable witness for them?

Seriously. Note to Mike Bull: expelled is full of lies. I saw it. I saw the lies. Is that REALLY what you hold up as capital-T Truth?

I can’t believe you fell for that shit! I guess PT Barnum was right.

In both debates I’ve seen between Hitchens and Wilson, Hitchens can never sufficiently explain why he believes he can make objective judgments about morality, beauty, etc. Until he can do this, the rest of the debate seems pointless to me.

Mike Bull –
Given your statement that “As the west turns its back on Christianity, we need more and more legislation because people are less and less self-governing”, how do you feel about the fact that you are less likely to be murdered now than if you had been alive at any other point in the history of Western civilisation?

I have nothing to add to Richard’s comments, except that I’d favorite it if I could, if only for the respectful (to Christians) tone that I think all of us atheists should emulate.

FSM knows I try, but that’s really difficult to pull off consistently.

And more times than not, that’s the last these people post here…
I think it’s rarely worth the effort.

Well, if that’s the only outcome, then maybe that’s worth the effort too.

My point about us being just a bunch of atoms (according to the atheist worldview) is that I find it impossible for anyone to have a consistent standard as to what is right and wrong.

OK. Now we’re a bunch of atoms and some spirit-goo. How does the spirit-goo change this?

FC: by bringing up the homosexual marriage ‘can of worms’ you just validated richard when he said:

They spend most of their time objecting to the real behaviors of real people who believe in a god and think that they are justified by their god to impose their narrow views upon others, taking away their civil rights, insinuating their theology into science, public education, public policy and private lives, and shunning, slandering, abusing, firing, beating and killing anyone who dares to disagree with them. That is the point. That is why it matters.

I do not care one bit if your faith compels you to define marriage as one-man-one-woman. I do not care if 85% of Americans (all the Christians) believe the same thing. But the law should not impose that restriction on everyone. Let the god-fearing straight couples get married in your church and deny that ceremony to the gays…that is your particular church’s business. By making it the LAW however, you are forcing your beliefs on all of us.

And “this is how we’ve always done it” is a very poor argument. We “always” had segregation, but luckily enough reasonable members of American society realized that denying rights on the basis of skin color is wrong.

If your argument for keeping the status quo has nothing firmer to stand on then “we’ve always done it this-a-way” then perhaps it is time to reevaluate the issue.

And i will grant you that homosexuality is not an evolution-friendly trait. neither is baldness.

Because we are a civilized society, and not a bunch of animals, we enact laws to protect the weak and the minority from the strong or the majority. We regulate ourselves with our laws in order that each of us may fully enjoy our own lives (or stuff) without interference from others. If you steal from me (or hurt me) you have denied me the right to enjoy my life. I can do whatever i want (I’m speaking in large generalities here) so long as I don’t hurt you or take your stuff (violate your rights). over the last 200+ years our laws have gotten more complicated as they adapt to our changing world, but the basics still hold true.

What i do in my bedroom (or with my life insurance) with other consenting adults is not harming anyone else. i do think there are already laws prohibiting public lewdness, so as long as you aren’t in the room with us (in which case you’d not be consenting and the argument is no longer valid) you will not be affected one bit. Why legislate something that doesn’t harm anyone?

I’m answering as fast as i can, FC, but i can’t see your response until i am done writing my own and the page refreshes. I’m still using an amiable tone, but you have strayed from your “friendly Christian” path.

My point was that i don’t care if You think it is wrong. You don’t get to tell me what to do, so long as i don’t hurt you. And obviously, feelings don’t count.

maybe this is all a ploy to keep us atheists occupied on this site so we are too busy to be activists or enjoy this fleeting life of ours!

Christi, I certainly have not meant to stray from an amiable tone. It is difficult to write in this format as it seems to be more tailored to quick responses.

I know you don’t care if I think you’re wrong. I would just say, why would I care what you think? (according to your worldview?) Is the standard “as long as I don’t hurt you”? If so, who made that up? Why is that the standard? Is it Christi’s standard, or did the majority decide that? You’ve already said, you don’t care what the majority says, so I guess that can’t be it. By the way, that is why I assume you are against abortion and are pro-life, because you don’t believe in hurting others.

And please understand, I am not angry or ranting or raving or anything of the like. If we were talking in person, you would be able to “hear” my tone and you would know that I am still using an amiable tone.

And no, this is not a ploy to keep you all occupied. ;^)
I’m smart enough to pull that off.

I should have said, thank God people are not dying like they used to.

Blessings to you all. I think I’m done for the night. So I most likely will not be responding tonight. Have a wonderful evening.

Wow. Asking you to be consistent is “telling you what you think”? I’ve asked for answers as to why you think the way you do and why anyone should listen to a bunch of atoms banging around? Never did you tell me why you think the way you think. Oh well, apparently asking questions, or more appropriately, asking for answers must build walls.

I have been very friendly (IMHO). I have not called anyone names. I have not damned you all to hell. I have not called for blood.

I don’t expect that I have “won” any one of you over to God’s side. I originally replied because I found it amusing that most people on this site were calling Hitchens the winner without hearing the panel (or the film of the debate between he and Wilson). Sorry, I just thought that funny.

Well, even if none of you is convinced, I hope you at least entertain some of my challenges. Sorry to have entered a “debate” here.

I am not the one with the allusions of the Christians being thrown to the lions. I did not ask for a bunch of saw dust to mop up the blood of Hitchens opponents.

friendly Christian said:

Wow. Asking you to be consistent is “telling you what you think”?

No, you’re coming here issuing challenges. “Asking you to be consistent” is not actually trying to come here to learn from others. It’s trying to come here, all assumptions about us made beforehand, and tell us where we have it all wrong. It takes no “open ears” at all to do what you’ve done.

For example, I and others have responded to your “we’re only atoms” attack. If you have been listening, you’d be able to sum up our argument in a couple of sentences. What is it? If you’re actually listening. If your ears work, you should be able to tell us why it is that we think we are not properly described as “just atoms”.

I’ve asked for answers as to why you think the way you do and why anyone should listen to a bunch of atoms banging around?

No you didn’t. Asking implies you want to know something from someone else. All you did was put a question-mark at the end of an attack.

Never did you tell me why you think the way you think.

Yes we did. You didn’t listen. I can only conclude therefore that you don’t want to know how I think. Otherwise you’d actually act like you gave a flying fuck.

Oh well, apparently asking questions, or more appropriately, asking for answers must build walls.

You aren’t asking questions. You’re issuing challenges. You come in here telling us we supposedly believe that we’re all just atoms, that we think every man is a moral island, that we are some kind of science droids with no appreciation for natural beauty, that we advocate kill-the-weak style morality… and then you start bringing in hot-button issues like Proposition 8, AIDS, late-term abortion… like any common internet troll.

You’re not asking questions. You’re trolling for a fight, or to feel like a big man defending your religion.

I have been very friendly (IMHO).

Multiple regular posters here would disagree. So how you doing getting people to listen? Is that working out for you so far? Do you enjoy shouting in the wind? Would you actually like to be heard?

How about taking a chill pill and adjusting your style? You are the newcomer here after all. You even pissed off a fellow Christian here!

I have not called anyone names. I have not damned you all to hell. I have not called for blood.

You set a low bar for civility if that’s all it takes to be friendly.

I don’t expect that I have “won” any one of you over to God’s side.

Whoo… listen to THAT ego!

I originally replied because I found it amusing that most people on this site were calling Hitchens the winner without hearing the panel (or the film of the debate between he and Wilson). Sorry, I just thought that funny.

So if you think it’s funny, who are you posting for? Who is reading your post and enjoying that humor? You seem really self-absorbed and self-pleased.

Well, even if none of you is convinced, I hope you at least entertain some of my challenges. Sorry to have entered a “debate” here.

Dude. You’re just coming off like a jerk with something to prove. Really. Chill. Trust me.

I am not the one with the allusions of the Christians being thrown to the lions. I did not ask for a bunch of saw dust to mop up the blood of Hitchens opponents.

I fail to see how you’ve set any better example.

spirit goo” again is a materialistic term. We are made in the image of God, and therefore, human beings (including unborn humans who have their own DNA–oh my, I’m using science) have more intrinsic value than any other creature.

Well, now I’m confused. The addition or not of a soul (spirit-goo) is not the important point – atoms in motion can have ‘intrinsic value’ if God values them? If God (a thinking subject) is the one doing assigning the value, the value (by definition) is still subjective. Adding a God doesn’t change anything.

Our value comes from beyond ourselves. You still haven’t answered according to the atheist worldview.

I don’t have the energy to go through it. Reading ahead, I see that you consider ‘God commands it’ to be a consistent standard of right and wrong. I don’t consider that as having to anything to do with what is right and wrong – we would be talking past each other.

AIDS is not a primarily homosexual disease. AIDS transmission began in North America in the gay population, and currently a slight majority of new infections in the USA are in the homosexual and bisexual populations – mainly because there is a larger pool of already infected individuals in these populations to begin with (as a result of the initial spread of the disease).

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/incidence.htm

Worldwide it’s a very different story. In countries that are not the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand UK, or in Europe (i.e. a larger portion of the world) heterosexuals are far and away the largest portion of those living with and newly infected by HIV/AIDS. The millions of HIV/AIDS infected individuals in Africa, and continuing epidemic there, are clear evidence of this. You can see similar patterns in many Asian countries.

http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp411-e.htm

Do we conclude that AIDS is a black/asian person’s disease because the majority of worldwide infections are in these populations? No.

There are behaviours that increase the risk of one getting HIV/AIDS, but anyone can partake of them and anyone can also mitigate their risk in these behaviours (drug use, multiple partners, unprotected sex, etc can all be made safer or avoided all together).

Okay, I’ll leave you all alone. There are far too many to respond to specifically. However, since you have responded a lot to me, Siamang , I will reply to your last comments.

If God assigns our meaning, who assigns God’s meaning?

Nobody. By definition God is the author of meaning.

Is God without meaning if there’s no God above Him deciding that?

Uh, no. He is God. There is none above Him.

If God can have meaning without an outside entity assigning it to Him, then so can I!

Ummm. . . no. . . You are not God. No offense.