Hitchens and dawkins, etc

[traillius]

their entire argument is :
There is no evidence for God,
X, a person of faith, had imperfections, therefore they are evil, and all faith is evil.
Thoughts?

 

[Pieman333272]

their entire argument is :
There is no evidence for God,
X, a person of faith, had imperfections, therefore they are evil, and all faith is evil.
Thoughts?

I’m sorry - why are we talking about these people on a philosophy forum? Is philosophy not “love of wisdom”?

 

[traillius]

I’m sorry - why are we talking about these people on a philosophy forum? Is philosophy not “love of wisdom”?

LOL. Those two certainly do love their own version of wisdom.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I don’t find much intellectual rigor or honesty in their arguments, but do they not need prayer?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

their entire argument is :
There is no evidence for God,
X, a person of faith, had imperfections, therefore they are evil, and all faith is evil.
Thoughts?

Well, its quite simple. Their atheism is a product of genetic influences, genetic mutations, and chemical imbalances in the brain. There is a section in the brain called an “atheist module” etc etc…

On a serious note, dawkins and hithchens, deep down, are miserable creatures and they don’t want God to exist, and they have found purpose and meaning in their miserable lives by trying to refute his existence and destroying peoples faith. For them it is an exilirating experience to be able to say God is evil, even though they contradict themselves. Yet the contradiction is subtle, and thus they can get away with it. So you can expect more where that came from.

 

[followingtheway]

their entire argument is :
There is no evidence for God,

Actually,

1. 
   *]Science proves that the universe did not always exist and had to have a beginning.
   *]God by definition is eternal. He didn’t need a creator, because He had no beginning and no end. He exists out of time and was always there.
   *]All other explanations of the universe, such as the Big Bang, all have gaps, because all of them (unlike God) require a beginning.
   

   X, a person of faith, had imperfections, therefore they are evil, and all faith is evil.
   Thoughts?

   Everyone has imperfections (because all have sinned - save Jesus and Mary). And the Atheists you just mentioned have imperfections too. Does that make the lack of faith evil?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t find much intellectual rigor or honesty in their arguments, but do they not need prayer?

When rational arguements do not prevail, all we can do for them is pray. Its in God hands:thumbsup:.

 

[Jocko_VT]

their entire argument is :
There is no evidence for God,
X, a person of faith, had imperfections, therefore they are evil, and all faith is evil.
Thoughts?

What’s an example of X? Where do Dawkins or Hitchens say X is evil? I’m just not sure what you’re referring to.

Since you asked for thoughts: I think the argument from these two and others is largely a reaction to the constant attempts to impose religion on people. For example, the Discovery Institute and the whole intelligent design movement is nothing more than an effort to get religion into public schools in the US. I also think it’s a response to the regular efforts to paint atheists as immoral, or incapable of being moral, and of incapable of being honest and trustworthy. If you take these things away, you take away the market for Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ popular atheism books.

On another note, for me, the utter lack of evidence for god(s) is a real clincher!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Atheists are often asked to prove there is no god. After all, they are supposed to be great believers in proof for everything.

Christopher Hitchens remarks somewhere, “What can be asserted without proof (the existence of God) can be dismissed without proof.”

Why shouldn’t this strategy work in reverse? When the atheist asserts there is no God, why shouldn’t his unproven remark be dismissed without proof that they are true?

 

[Jocko_VT]

Atheists are often asked to prove there is no god.

Indeed, they are. It’s right out of Kirk Cameron’s “Way of the Master” garbage.

After all, they are supposed to be great believers in proof for everything.

I don’t think so. I don’t think atheists are any different from anyone else in this regard. People like to have some sort of proof for positive assertions. On the other hand, when there’s an utter lack of proof for a positive assertion, people don’t really (usually) need proof of the negative. There are exceptions, of course, which is what you bring up–christians believe in god without positive evidence. Atheists don’t believe in god because there’s no evidence for him.

Christopher Hitchens remarks somewhere, “What can be asserted without proof (the existence of God) can be dismissed without proof.”

True of anything–not just god(s).

Why shouldn’t this strategy work in reverse? When the atheist asserts there is no God, why shouldn’t his unproven remark be dismissed without proof that they are true?

Because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. You say there is a god–the burden of proof is on you. I say there is no god–I have nothing to prove. After all, you can’t prove a negative.

I believe the argument that “There is a god because I can’t prove there is not a god” is called an argument from ignorance.

I only ask people to prove there’s a god when they try to force religion down my throat or when they ask me to prove there is no god. Otherwise, it’s not my concern. I believe your experience is real. I don’t think you’re lying about it. I just don’t believe it’s what you think it is.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jocko

Because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. You say there is a god–the burden of proof is on you. I say there is no god–I have nothing to prove. After all, you can’t prove a negative.

If I said there is no life on any other planet in the universe, would you say I had no obligation to prove that?

 

[JDaniel]

Well, its quite simple. Their atheism is a product of genetic influences, genetic mutations, and chemical imbalances in the brain. There is a section in the brain called an “atheist module”

MoM:

When was this discovered?

God bless,
jd

 

[traillius]

Indeed, they are. It’s right out of Kirk Cameron’s “Way of the Master” garbage.

I don’t think so. I don’t think atheists are any different from anyone else in this regard. People like to have some sort of proof for positive assertions. On the other hand, when there’s an utter lack of proof for a positive assertion, people don’t really (usually) need proof of the negative. There are exceptions, of course, which is what you bring up–christians believe in god without positive evidence. Atheists don’t believe in god because there’s no evidence for him.

True of anything–not just god(s).

Because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. You say there is a god–the burden of proof is on you. I say there is no god–I have nothing to prove. After all, you can’t prove a negative.

I believe the argument that “There is a god because I can’t prove there is not a god” is called an argument from ignorance.
no god. Otherwise, it’s not my concern. I believe your experience is real. I don’t think you’re lying about it. I just don’t believe it’s what you think it is.

burden of proof lies on both sides.
I am not surprised you would say it lies with the affirmative, because that is easy. When you say no evidence, what you mean is no evidence that you will accept. At least be honest. Data doesn’t cease to serve as evidence merely because you reach a different conclusion than that arrived at by the opposing viewpoint, based on the same data set.,

 

[Jocko_VT]

Jocko

Because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. You say there is a god–the burden of proof is on you. I say there is no god–I have nothing to prove. After all, you can’t prove a negative.

If I said there is no life on any other planet in the universe, would you say I had no obligation to prove that?

I think that’s a good point, Charles. Where it fails for me, in that example, is that there is life on Earth, and there’s no reason to think that’s unique. But that’s a separate issue. On the other hand, if you said there’s no such thing as Shiva, I would not expect you to provide evidence.

You asked a question. I gave you an answer that is actually commonly accepted–the burden of proof is on those who argue the positive position. Thus, you couldn’t actually prove that there was no other life in the universe. You agree with this, I assume. If, on the other hand, I said there was, definitely, other life in the universe, I’d need to provide evidence. I could say there’s a good probability, and provide some sort of explanation; but if I wanted to argue outright that there is definitely life out there, I’d need to provide positive evidence. You, on the other hand, don’t need to. In fact, you can’t–such a thing can’t be proved. That doesn’t mean I need to accept that. I could have hope. I do believe there is life in the universe other than on earth. But I can’t prove it.

So, you asked your question, though. The answer truly is that the burden of proof always lies on the individual making the positive assertion. That’s why that doesn’t work. I can not prove a negative. It’s not humanly possible. You can prove a positive, so the burden is on you.

 

[Jocko_VT]

burden of proof lies on both sides.

No, actually, it doesn’t. Prove to me that there’s no invisible, unmeasurable-in-any-way, monster in your closet. You can’t, and you don’t have to. The burden of proof is *always *on the positive assertion.

I am not surprised you would say it lies with the affirmative, because that is easy.

Insult number one: I always want to take the easy way out because that’s just the kind of person I am.

Why do you want to use this kind of rhetoric? You could have just said, “Isn’t that taking the easy way out?”

When you say no evidence, what you mean is no evidence that you will accept. At least be honest.

Insult number two: I’m not honest.

Why do you want to use this kind of rhetoric? Why is this okay with you? Why can’t we have a mature conversation where you don’t call me a liar? Do you actually think I’m lying to you?

Data doesn’t cease to serve as evidence merely because you reach a different conclusion than that arrived at by the opposing viewpoint, based on the same data set.,

I agree. Of course, where’s the data? But, If you can’t be more considerate and thoughtful…if you can’t treat me as a human being worthy of your respect if for no other reason than that I’m a human being worthy of your respect…then please don’t respond, because I’m not interested in being called a liar and lazy or whatever by a complete stranger.

 

[Jocko_VT]

What’s an example of X? Where do Dawkins or Hitchens say X is evil? I’m just not sure what you’re referring to.

Since you asked for thoughts: I think the argument from these two and others is largely a reaction to the constant attempts to impose religion on people. For example, the Discovery Institute and the whole intelligent design movement is nothing more than an effort to get religion into public schools in the US. I also think it’s a response to the regular efforts to paint atheists as immoral, or incapable of being moral, and of incapable of being honest and trustworthy. If you take these things away, you take away the market for Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ popular atheism books.

Why take the opportunity to call me a lazy liar, and completely disregard my response to your OP?

 

[JDaniel]

What’s an example of X? Where do Dawkins or Hitchens say X is evil? I’m just not sure what you’re referring to.

Since you asked for thoughts: I think the argument from these two and others is largely a reaction to the constant attempts to impose religion on people. For example, the Discovery Institute and the whole intelligent design movement is nothing more than an effort to get religion into public schools in the US. I also think it’s a response to the regular efforts to paint atheists as immoral, or incapable of being moral, and of incapable of being honest and trustworthy. If you take these things away, you take away the market for Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ popular atheism books.

On another note, for me, the utter lack of evidence for god(s) is a real clincher!

Jocko:

I’m sure you were kidding, right? If there is an “absolute lack of evidence” of anything, it is the evidence for the belief that the universe came about by pure chance (not ‘randomness’ which means homogeneity) from pure nothing (which means no existent thing(s) from which anything could be made, or, by the action of which something could be brought into being). That, Jocko, is the real ‘real clincher’!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Atheists are often asked to prove there is no god. After all, they are supposed to be great believers in proof for everything.

Christopher Hitchens remarks somewhere, “What can be asserted without proof (the existence of God) can be dismissed without proof.”

Why shouldn’t this strategy work in reverse? When the atheist asserts there is no God, why shouldn’t his unproven remark be dismissed without proof that they are true?

Perfectly logical.

God bless,
jd

 

[Hokomai]

Dawkins, at least, (I don’t read Hitchens much) does NOT as the OP claims, attack people who do evil things and happen to be also religious. He attacks people who do things he considers evil BECAUSE of their religion - the 9/11 terrorists, bishops who cover up abuse for fear of scandal, Catholics who oppose condoms to reduce the spread of aids, Christians and Muslims who fill children with the fear of hell etc. The fact that people who do these things do not think they are evil is exactly his point. They think they are o.k. because of their religion, and therefore do these evil things. His point is summed up in that poster of the New York skyline with the twin towers still standing and the text “Imagine no religion”.

 

[followingtheway]

the 9/11 terrorists, bishops who cover up abuse for fear of scandal, Catholics who oppose condoms to reduce the spread of aids, Christians and Muslims who fill children with the fear of hell etc.

How about Atheists like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Jared Lee Loughner and Communist North Korea?

Without Religion there will still be violence. Religion is about a personal relationship with God and about faith. There’s just some people who abuse it.

GOD bless,

David