Hitchens and dawkins, etc

[Betterave]

While it isn’t very interesting or constructive, it’s worth getting a last word in, eh?

The point I made was constructive. Your response, unfortunately, not so much.

 

[Betterave]

…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.

So I guess this is the post you wanted me to respond to? Funny thing is, I already did. (Your being closed-minded prevented you from noticing.) I corrected your mistaken use of the concept of a ‘positive assertion.’ Your assertion, “there is no god,” IS a positive assertion (just like the statement “there is no apple in my bag”). But go ahead and ignore that if you like.

 

[Jocko_VT]

@Betterave

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!

Actually, this is the post I’m willing to go over with you.

**Betterave **(Your being closed-minded prevented you from noticing.)

This is why it’s best to avoid snarky attacks. You were wrong. I know, it’s all too tempting to take advantage and take that shot, or add some unnecessary and unfriendly sarcasm–I do it too–but wouldn’t we all do well to limit it a bit more?

Like I said, I’m done talking about the burden of proof stuff. If you want to talk about the original post and my original response to it, that’s fine with me.

 

[Betterave]

@Betterave

Actually, this is the post I’m willing to go over with you.

This is why it’s best to avoid snarky attacks.

Correct. (They also tend to earn ‘snarky’ replies, as you’ve hopefully noticed. )

You were wrong. …]

Like I said, I’m done talking about the burden of proof stuff. If you want to talk about the original post and my original response to it, that’s fine with me.

But I wasn’t wrong. You are just apparently failing to see the obvious logical connections between your original response and “the burden of proof stuff” and what I wrote criticizing that stuff (to the substance of which you are so far steadfastly refusing to respond - which is certainly your prerogative).

 

[Jocko_VT]

Correct. (They also tend to earn ‘snarky’ replies, as you’ve hopefully noticed. )

But I wasn’t wrong. You are just apparently failing to see the obvious logical connections between your original response and “the burden of proof stuff” and what I wrote criticizing that stuff (to the substance of which you are so far steadfastly refusing to respond - which is certainly your prerogative).

I won’t respond. For the third time now. I’m done with the burden of proof discussion.

You were wrong because you didn’t go back to the post I said I was willing to discuss, yet you thought you did and made a smart-alec comment because of it. But you weren’t at the correct post. I’m sorry that you aren’t sorry.

So, if you want to talk about this:

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!

…which has nothing to do with the burden of proof, then so be it. Otherwise…

 

[Betterave]

I won’t respond. For the third time now. I’m done with the burden of proof discussion.

You were wrong because you didn’t go back to the post I said I was willing to discuss, yet you thought you did and made a smart-alec comment because of it. But you weren’t at the correct post. I’m sorry that you aren’t sorry.

LOL! I won’t respond either… but again, you’re completely ignoring my point about logical connections. There is also no logical connection between my ‘smart-alec comment/(observation/argument)’ and which post I went back to. I’m sorry that you aren’t noticing this and that you think it’s okay to beg the question on this point.

So, if you want to talk about this:
"On another note, for me, the utter lack of evidence for god(s) is a real clincher! "
…which has nothing to do with the burden of proof, then so be it. Otherwise…

So you claimed: “On another note, for me, the utter lack of evidence for god(s) is a real clincher!”

Now please note: your positive claim here is that there is an utter lack of evidence for god(s). Are you with me so far?

 

[Jocko_VT]

LOL! I won’t respond either… but again, you’re completely ignoring my point about logical connections. There is also no logical connection between my ‘smart-alec comment/(observation/argument)’ and which post I went back to. I’m sorry that you aren’t noticing this and that you think it’s okay to beg the question on this point.

So you claimed: “On another note, for me, the utter lack of evidence for god(s) is a real clincher!”

Now please note: your positive claim here is that there is an utter lack of evidence for god(s). Are you with me so far?

That’s my comment with regard to the original post.

Originally Posted by traillius View Post
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?

In my opinion, the post should have just said:

Originally Posted by traillius View Post
their entire argument is :
There is no evidence for God,
Thoughts?

“There is no evidence for God,” which I rephrased “the utter lack of evidence for God” is the meaningful part of this post to me. But it added the other section on “X…had imperfections, therefore they are evil…” And I have no idea what the point was or who X was or how it was supposed to result in thoughts from the commenters.

While I agree with it–that there’s no evidence–it’s attributed to Hitchens and Dawkins, etc.

 

[Prophesy]

I won’t respond. For the third time now. I’m done with the burden of proof discussion.

I didn’t take the time to go through the burden of proof discussion between you two, but it stands that the burden of proof lies on the person affirming the existence or state of something.

So, if you want to talk about this:

…which has nothing to do with the burden of proof, then so be it. Otherwise…

The immorality of believers isn’t a Dawkins thing so much as a Hitchens thing.

Dawkins is much more a believer that all religious people are dyed-in-the-wool faithheads. He goes on making assertions that science has disproved God’s existence (which I as a chemist as well as my quantum mechanics professor contest).

Hitchens talks about the believers being just as bad people as non-religious people. The best example of this is perhaps his discourse on Mother Teresa.

“The journalist Christopher Hitchens has been one of her most active critics. He was commissioned to co-write and narrate the documentary Hell’s Angel about her [Mother Teresa] for the British Channel 4”

Let alone his book The Missionary Position.

-Prophesy

 

[Betterave]

“There is no evidence for God,” which I rephrased “the utter lack of evidence for God” is the meaningful part of this post to me. But it added the other section on “X…had imperfections, therefore they are evil…” And I have no idea what the point was or who X was or how it was supposed to result in thoughts from the commenters.

While I agree with it–that there’s no evidence–it’s attributed to Hitchens and Dawkins, etc.

Right; so as I said, your positive claim here is that there is an utter lack of evidence for god(s). Now do you think that you need to have some sort of proof for this positive assertion? (You seem to have logically implied that you do.)

 

[Jocko_VT]

The immorality of believers isn’t a Dawkins thing so much as a Hitchens thing.

I think they both make the point, though Hitchens is more virulent as you point out. But does

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

actually characterize either of their arguments? I don’t think so.

Dawkins is much more a believer that all religious people are dyed-in-the-wool faithheads. He goes on making assertions that science has disproved God’s existence (which I as a chemist as well as my quantum mechanics professor contest).

Isn’t he getting at the things once attributed to supernatural causes now being explainable by natural causes? For example, disease.

Hitchens talks about the believers being just as bad people as non-religious people. The best example of this is perhaps his discourse on Mother Teresa.

I’ve heard him talk a bit about Mother Theresa. Does he call her evil?

As part of the choir to whom Dawkins and Hitchens preach, I don’t take their writings so literally as I think many people do. The point, to me, is just to say that atheists aren’t bad people–we’re moral people just like theists–and religious people are not better.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Right; so as I said, your positive claim here is that there is an utter lack of evidence for god(s). Now do you think that you need to have some sort of proof for this positive assertion? (You seem to have logically implied that you do.)

It’s not my claim. It’s Hitchens’ and Dawkins’. I agree with it, but I didn’t make the claim.

 

[Betterave]

The point, to me, is just to say that atheists aren’t bad people–we’re moral people just like theists–and religious people are not better.

But this is an empirical question you are addressing here, a hermeneutically complicated one, and it’s hard to see why your (and their) simplistic and dogmatic way of addressing it deserves to be taken seriously by reasonable people. I’m not trying to tell you I think I’m better than you. I’m just pointing out that you seem not to be addressing the question in a responsible way.

 

[Betterave]

It’s not my claim. It’s Hitchens’ and Dawkins’. I agree with it, but I didn’t make the claim.

When you say, “Here is claim X; I agree with it,” you are ipso facto making claim X, surely, and making it your own (which does not imply you invented it).

(Otherwise it’s also not H’s and D’s claim, since they surely weren’t the first to make it.)

 

[Jocko_VT]

But this is an empirical question you are addressing here, a hermeneutically complicated one,

Explain to me how it is hermeneutically complicated.

and it’s hard to see why your (and their) simplistic and dogmatic way of addressing it deserves to be taken seriously by reasonable people.

What is their way of addressing it? Now that may be the point of this thread!!! What about Hitchens’ and Dawkins’ argument? What do you think about it? Why? That may be an interesting conversation that I’d enjoy reading and maybe even participating in.

I’m not trying to tell you I think I’m better than you.

You’ve succeeded nonetheless.

I’m just pointing out that you seem not to be addressing the question in a responsible way.

What question is it that I’m not addressing in a responsible way, and why is it my responsiblity to address it? Furthermore, have other people in this thread been addressing it in a responsible way? Would you consider referring to anything about another person as “simplistic and dogmatic” as a responsible way of addressing them?

 

[Jocko_VT]

When you say, “Here is claim X; I agree with it,” you are ipso facto making claim X, surely, and making it your own (which does not imply you invented it).

(Otherwise it’s also not H’s and D’s claim, since they surely weren’t the first to make it.)

I also agree with Einstein, but I do not feel obligated to make the argument behind it. I’m willing to just accept it. Furthermore, simply because I’ve acknowledged that I agree with them does not excuse your efforts to badger me into bickering with you.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Start with something new. Rephrase it. Do something. It’s getting old. Maybe even start a new thread–I’ll follow you.

 

[Jocko_VT]

But this is an empirical question you are addressing here, a hermeneutically complicated one,

I’m not sure how you’d measured it. Why do you say it’s hermeneutically complicated?

and it’s hard to see why your (and their) simplistic and dogmatic way of addressing it deserves to be taken seriously by reasonable people.

My way of addressing this particular question (which I think was not done in this thread) was neither simplistic nor dogmatic, and for you to say so is insulting. What’s been either simplistic or dogmatic?!?

I’m not trying to tell you I think I’m better than you.

You’ve suceeded, nonetheless.

I’m just pointing out that you seem not to be addressing the question in a responsible way.

My way of addressing this particular question–in another thread and not this one–has been very responsible. I haven’t discussed this here, though.

 

[Betterave]

I also agree with Einstein, but I do not feel obligated to make the argument behind it. I’m willing to just accept it.

Okay, so you’ve decided to ignore my point and to avoid discussing that which you claimed to be open to discussing. That’s open-minded of you.

Furthermore, simply because I’ve acknowledged that I agree with them does not excuse your efforts to badger me into bickering with you.

That strikes me as dishonest and hypocritical. If you can’t respond to a logical point with anything but ad hominem nonsense like this then you really are no better than many of the theists around here - so I guess you win! We are all the same!

 

[Betterave]

I’m not sure how you’d measured it. Why do you say it’s hermeneutically complicated?

I hope you don’t mind my asking, but do you have any idea what “hermeneutically complicated” means? I had assumed that you did, but maybe I was wrong?

My way of addressing this particular question (which I think was not done in this thread) was neither simplistic nor dogmatic, and for you to say so is insulting. What’s been either simplistic or dogmatic?!?

You’re always getting upset about ‘insults’ before making a credible attempt to establish the truth or falsity of said ‘insults.’ That’s a no-no. It’s called begging the question (again: common behaviour around here).

You’ve suceeded, nonetheless.

I suppose I have, in a sense different from the one I originally intended. Very perceptive of you (although it was rather dishonest of you to ignore my point).

My way of addressing this particular question–in another thread and not this one–has been very responsible. I haven’t discussed this here, though.

Be that (or be that not) as it may, it seems not very responsible to address claims made in this thread in some other thread.

 

[Betterave]

Start with something new. Rephrase it. Do something. It’s getting old. Maybe even start a new thread–I’ll follow you.

I’m not sure why you’re so rankled. I’m just trying to rationally examine your claim here - why get so squirmy?