February 1, 2011
-
Dr. Craig defines Atheism correctly….
to the chagrin of Chris Hitchens.
“Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.” ~Common Sense Atheism.com
to the chagrin of Chris Hitchens.
“Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.” ~Common Sense Atheism.com
Comments (77)
The clip’s sound-effects and cut-slides were unbearably irritating.
The video just cuts him off and puts words he didn’t say into his mouth.
I love when christians can’t let these debates stand or fall on their own merits and have to edit the shit out of the atheist’s rebuttal. It’s pathetic.
@Celestial_Teapot -
Those are your only observations? Interesting.
@bakersdozen2 -
So post the debate, not this hacked up piece of shit.
@agnophilo -
I’ll post what I’d like on my blog. You’re a free agent. Look up the debate yourself.
@bakersdozen2 -
And I’m free to criticize it as a cowardly attempt to hide behind video editing.
@agnophilo -
Yes, you are. No one is stopping you.
However if you’re really interested in the truth I would think you’d look it up for yourself. Or at the very least go to the CSA site and read their review. They are atheists after all. You’d think they’d provide a “non- cowardly”, objective opinion.
Truth should be able to stand on its own. And the guy admits that there *is* evidence FOR God, but just that it is not “magnificent” enough. And then he says that absence of evidence is evidence for absence.
And that line about “the right to tell me what I should do” is exactly what I have been trying to hit on in my latest series of blogs. If no one can say in the Name of God what I should do, then no one can say in the Name of ANYTHING what I should do!
Actually, I’ve seen the entire debate and apparently so have those at CSA.
@bakersdozen2 - I’m use to following the arguments and sorting them myself.
A video is the worst place to force-feed interjecting text blocks of commentary. I wouldn’t have minded it as much if the commentary were on a webpage or something.
@mtngirlsouth -
The thought of deriving my worth (the worth of anyone) from
the authority of human consensus is frightening. People here on Xanga declare others to be of no worth simply by virtue of mere disagreement.
@Celestial_Teapot -
Dr. Craig provides a transcript of all his debates on his web site reasonablefaith.com.
The truth comes out at 8:03 in the vid. Mr. Hitchens admits that it’s about not wanting to be told what to do by other human beings in the name of God. If Mr. Hitchens admits God’s existence, he will then have to admit that he is in an unenviable position with God, and will have to change his ways, which is to say repent. I understand his reluctance, I was there myself once. Fear and pride paint comical pictures when mixed.
Mr Hitchens exposes his profound misunderstanding of what the Living God and His risen son Yeshua are all about. He understands this Most High God to be about restriction, prohibition and manipulation, when exactly the opposite is true. Father sets those of us who put our trust in Him at liberty, free of that same fear which drives the atheist to hide from his Creator God! That guilt, and the fear that comes with it, are lifted from us, and unlike the illusory freedom that men chase after in the world, we are set at total liberty to serve that which is eternal, walking in gratitude to God for His great promise and gift, free from the burden of self-inflicted righteousness. Our righteousness is now in Him, and the fear turns to joy and gratitude.
Now no man indeed may tell us what to do, we are free agents in truth. Brothers and sisters in Christ die for their faith in so many places around the world, not even the threat of death has hold on them today. What will they do to us, kill us? We’ll just jump right back out of that dirt to glory and eternal life one day, and to us, it will seem only an instant! For anyone who truly seeks freedom, and truth and mercy and liberty, Yeshua is the only way. The only way any may come into Creator God’s presence is by our faith in Yeshua. He is the only means to righteousness for any man or woman.
It was not God’s idea to set up a government in the form of a kingdom. He had set His people at liberty with next to no government at all other than the judges that He raised up as needed. The Jews demanded a king, and through Samuel, God warned them of the price they’d pay for it, but God gave them what they demanded. He told Samuel that it had not been him or the authority he exercised over them that the people had rejected, it was God Himself that they had rejected.
And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. (1Sa 8:7)
So in that story we see an early picture of the spirit of atheism at work, rejecting God in favor of a man’s rule over them (knowing inside that He really did exist). Although they didn’t deny the existence of an entity they believed to be God, they did not believe in the God who could and would establish, provide for and protect them as a people and as a nation. In other words, they denied the existence of the True God. YHWH certainly could have done all those things, and He can do it today for any nation that acknowledges, glorifies and trusts in Him. Apparently the god they believed in couldn’t.
I hope at least some of you brothers and sisters in Christ will join me in praying that Father will be merciful toward this man and atheists everywhere, open their eyes to the truth both about Him and about themselves, and soften their hearts toward Him even as His heart is soft toward them. That billboard Father hung on a roman cross over two thousand years ago was put out there for them too, and the freedom we’ve been given freely and without merit is available to them as surely as it came to us. Our job is to hold it out to them as someone once did for us.
Yeshua’s peace be with you and the Mr, sister. Peace be with all reading
@agnophilo -
Are you saying that Hitchens did not say that atheism is a proposition that a certain claim isn’t true?
@nyclegodesi24 -
He was clearly from the context (despite the rest of his response being abruptly cut off) saying that atheism does not make any assertions and is rather a rejection of theism. He was saying that it is inaccurate to say “atheism is true” for that very reason.
In context:
“Well, I mean, there are different schools of atheism as you say, but there’s no claim I know how to make that says atheism is true because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition isn’t true. So I wish you’d get this bit right because—there you go again. I’ve just devoted a little time to this. I said it is not, in itself, a belief or a system, it simply says you can by get by better, probably, we think, without the assumption and that no one who wants you to worship a god has ever been able to come up with a good enough reason to make you to do it.”
Virtually every atheist I’ve ever known or talked to or even heard of is an agnostic atheist who doesn’t claim to know there are no gods regardless of their opinion on whether there was one. In this debate craig is trying to put forward the strawman that atheism is the assertion that as a matter of fact there is no god and that the burden of proof is therefore on the atheist. Which hitchens spends a great deal of time debunking and explaining the difference between not believing in the tooth fairy and claiming to have proven the tooth fairy does not exist. You do not have to prove the tooth fairy does not exist to justify not believing in it, that isn’t the way evidence works. What craig wants is for theism to be considered true until proven false and the idea that there isn’t a god to be considered false until proven true. It doesn’t work that way, any
extraordinary claim is considered false until supported by evidence.
This is just word game BS.
@agnophilo -
“In this debate craig is trying to put forward the strawman that atheism is the assertion that as a matter of fact there is no god and that the burden of proof is therefore on the atheist.”
The debate is on whether or not god exists. It is entitled “Does God exist”. Mr. Hitchens agreed to argue the position that he does not. He does have to offer support for his position. This is why Dr. Craig is pressing the point. His reference to the tooth fairy is all well and good. And if he had agreed to a debate on the topic “Does the tooth fairy exist”, he would have to put forward his position that the tooth fairy in all probability does NOT exist.
These debates are never conducted on the basis of providing CERTAIN proof. They are conducted with the understanding that both sides will provide PROBABLE inferences for their position. Mr. Hitchens can not just show up and state, “Sorry I don’t have to”.
Honestly, he should have just stayed home. In fact an argument can be made that he really didn’t show up at all given the force of his position he provided.
@bakersdozen2 -
How would you go about arguing that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist other than to refute the arguments that it does?
And in craig’s case, his argument is just a strawman and a bunch of word games.
@agnophilo -
@agnophilo -
Well that is the dilemma for the atheist who agrees to take the position “God does not exist” in a debate. It is not a word game. It is how debates are conducted. At the end Dr. Craig points out the Mr. Hitchens must (at the very least) refute the assertions that he’s put forward.
@AOK4WAY -
“I hope at least some of you brothers and sisters in Christ will join me in praying that Father will be merciful toward this man and atheists everywhere, open their eyes to the truth both about Him and about themselves, and soften their hearts toward Him even as His heart is soft toward them.”
Amen, I know I do pray for them. I also know that there are others here on Xanga who do as well. It may sound trite and even condescending but it’s true that those who love The Lord long for their peace. A peace that can only be realized when they are reconciled to Him.
Thank-you for your comment and peace to you as well, Brother.
@bakersdozen2 -
He made his position clear several times, including here:
CRAIG: Do you have any arguments leading to the conclusion that God does not exist?
HITCHENS: Well I would rather, I think—I’m wondering if I’m boring anybody now. I would rather say—I’d rather state it in reverse and say I find all the arguments in favor to be fallacious or unconvincing.
Craig was trying to paint him into a corner so he could argue against a strawman, and the video editing did the rest.
In reality you cannot argue that something exists because you can’t prove it doesn’t exist. Or if that is your position, don’t be a hypocrite and believe in tooth fairies and unicorns and allah and vishnu and fairies and zeus and hundreds of thousands of other things that can’t be disproven either. But don’t hold to an argument disingenously only when it suits the position you hold at the moment, that is a rationalization, not a rational position.
@agnophilo -
“He made his position clear several times, including here:”
No, what is clear is that he changed his position several times.
“In reality you cannot argue that something exists because you can’t prove it doesn’t exist.”
This is a mischaracterization of Dr. Craig’s presentation. In the debate, he does make valid assertions for God’s existence none of which Hitchens addresses, strangely. If Hitchens really believes he can’t adequately address the probability that God does NOT exist or if he feels he is unable to argue against Dr. Craig’s assertions that God DOES exist, then why did he bother to debate him on the subject in the first place?
Of course, Craig is going to pin him down on his position. It isn’t a straw man. It is the premise for the very debate they agreed upon. Do you or do you NOT believe God exists…… and then make your case!!
Don’t equivocate.
Hitchens admission that he could not make a statement that atheism is true is devastating.
That means he admits to believing in something that is not true. If something is not true, it is false.
So Hitchens admits that atheism is false.
I agree with you. Hitchens should not have shown up for the debate.
Great job! Excellent post.
@agnophilo -
I’m not sure the full vid is available online? It seems to be copyrighted by biola. – http://www.biola.edu/academics/sas/apologetics/debate/enhanceddvd/
Have you seen clips of Hitchens after chemo? It was startling to see Hitchens thinner and bald.
The interruptions make this hard to follow. I think I’d rather watch it unedited. Although, it seems it may be really long.
@Celestial_Teapot -
Yes, I have…. There is a debate forum with Hitchens, WLC, Doug Wilson and a couple of other folks. It’s from before C.H’s diagnosis. Mr. Hitchens begins to have some choking/coughing problems to the point where everyone is concerned. It goes on for quite some time.
It’s really sad.
@MagisterTom -
It is fairly long but interesting. It’s just under 2.5 hours.
@acomfortingcolloquy -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVB9tdF1sDE
I’ve seen Craig in person a few times in debates. He approaches his topics with cunning, and most of the people he debates are more concerned with truth than word games. Craig loves word games and can, if allowed, call black white and make an argument for it. It’s not a sound argument, but who expects that in a debate anyway. He reminds me of a super genius who is only about three years old, taking childish arguments to heights never before reached.
But like all of these kinds of debates, it’s apples and oranges. Christians cannot produce god so therefore they must attempt to turn the tables and claim that non belief is some sort of belief and hold it to standards that non belief cannot support in a logical world.
Craig is a master at this pea and cup routine, and when he can’t do that he has other tactics like bringing up so many fallacious arguments that his opponent hasn’t time to refute them all. Personally I see him as a shyster.
@bakersdozen2 -
“No, what is clear is that he changed his position several times.”
He’s stated his position many times including in this debate. But you’re asserting that he was just lying all of those times and this tidbit taken out of context and distorted is what he really meant. I’m not so desperate I have to strawman people to disagree with them effectively.
["In reality you cannot argue that something exists because you can't prove it doesn't exist."]
“This is a mischaracterization of Dr. Craig’s presentation. In the debate, he does make valid assertions for God’s existence”
Another dodge, as usual. You’re saying that he wasn’t saying what he said because he said other things too. Right after insisting the exact opposite about hitchens, cherry picking one sentence fragment and ignoring everything else he said on the same topic.
“none of which Hitchens addresses, strangely.”
What did he not address?
“If Hitchens really believes he can’t adequately address the probability that God does NOT exist or if he feels he is unable to argue against Dr. Craig’s assertions that God DOES exist, then why did he bother to debate him on the subject in the first place?”
He spent the entire debate arguing against his assertions in-depth – wtf are you talking about?
“Of course, Craig is going to pin him down on his position. It isn’t a straw man.”
Bullshit. Hitchens made his position clear several times and craig kept disingenously asking him the question over and over trying to get him to say something he could twist into positive atheism. These are all from hitchens before craig kept asking him what his views are:
“Now it’s often said, it was said tonight, and Dr. Craig said it in print, that atheists think they can prove the nonexistence of God. This, in fact, very slightly but crucially misrepresents what we’ve always said.”
“Dr. Victor Stenger, a great scientist, has written a book called The Failed Hypothesis, which he says he thinks that science can now license the claim that there definitely is no God, but he’s unique in that“
“Here’s what we argue: We argue quite simply that there’s no plausible or convincing reason, certainly no evidential one, to believe that there is such an entity, and that all observable phenomena, including the cosmological one to which I’m coming, are explicable without the hypothesis. You don’t need the assumption.”
Etc.
Craig then goes on to ignore his position altogether and attack it for not being positive atheism, which hitchens clearly does not hold to and is by definition a strawman. Not only that, but one hitchens had already painstakingly explained was a strawman.
The passage the video harped on about to the exclusion of everything he’s said on the subject in his entire career was meant to illustrate that atheism isn’t making an assertion, but hitchens said atheists assert that a given proposition is not true when he should have more accurately said is not credible or isn’t supported by evidence. He eloquently and correctly explained his position numerous times and craig badgered him into misspeaking once, which was, to the exclusion of everything else in the debate, misrepresented as hitchens losing the argument and god’s existence supposedly being proven in a stupendous feat of irrational thinking. Badgering an atheist into misspeaking and video editing are not an argument for the existence of any deity. But they are a god distraction for people who think “we won” is an argument.
“It is the premise for the very debate they agreed upon. Do you or do you NOT believe God exists…… and then make your case!!
Don’t equivocate.”
And he didn’t. He explained it very thoroughly and clearly.
@Da__Vinci -
Interesting perspective. I’ve seen JT complain about this same thing before.
I have listened to/watched and or read the transcripts of every one of WLC debates. I’ve also, seen all of the debates Hitchens has been in. I’m pretty familiar w/ their style of argumentation. Hitchens very rarely strays from his canned presentation. And what he presents is less of a defense of atheism and more of a list of grievances against “god”.
Both gentlemen were given the task of presenting their positions. Neither were required to prove their position with certainty but they were required to provide reasonable inference. Dr. Craig’s insistence that Hitchens state his position clearly is hardly a word game. It’s what Chris was supposed to be prepared to do when he showed up to the event.
Mr. Hitchens fluctuation of his stated position makes Dr. Craig’s task as difficult as nailing jello to the wall. Words have meaning, and in debates, positions do too.
On the one hand Mr. Hitchens would prefer to take the position of uncertainty because frankly it takes away the burden of making a decent case. And in the next minute he wants the luxury of being so sure that there is no god that he compares theism to believing in fluffy pink unicorns or Santa Clause. In other words, he wants to eat his cake and have it too. THAT…. I would call disingenuous.
Mr. Hitchens is welcome to prefer to believe that god *might not exist* in the privacy of his own home.
He’s welcome to believe whatever he’d like and shout it from the roof tops for all I care. But if he agrees to take the position “god does not exist” in a debate forum; he better be prepared to argue his position with reasonable inference.
@agnophilo -
See above
@TheNewSeminarian@revelife -
That is nonsense. He was saying that it is not correct to say that atheism is true or false because it is not a proposition, but a rejection of another proposition. Oh whatever, you won’t listen.
@bakersdozen2 -
So he’s debating with an un-diagnosed tumor and you’re ragging on him about misspeaking once over a 2 +hour debate?
@MagisterTom -
Here is the transcript if you want:
http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com/2010/07/hitchens-vs-craig-biola-university.html
@bakersdozen2 -
Yes, see the above response to someone else that ignores everything I said.
You’re such a coward.
@agnophilo -
Lol! Your attempt to twist my words is silly. As if I’m picking on poor Hitch when the man is ill.
I think you’ve exhausted your contribution to this discussion. Have a good day, Mark!
@agnophilo -
ah yes, and a young man sitting behind the comfort of his computer being disrespectful to a woman old enough to be his mother is……. brave??
I’ll take coward as a compliment then.
I’ll be honest, I only watched the first 53 seconds. But, I make a point of watching this once I get home and can focus on the topic. But after skimming through the comments, I’ll probably watch the longer, unedited one.
But without having watched the video, unless Dr. Craig defines Atheism as a lack of belief in super natural deities, he probably hasn’t defined it properly.
And I’m going to have to agree that the burden of proof for God, rests on the theist (without spouting bible/qur’an verses because that’s a circular argument). But if Hitchens is going to show up and say “I don’t have to” I agree with you, he should have stayed home.
@bakersdozen2 -
I’ve argued my position well, you’ve ignored my arguments entirely. Sorry, but by default you lose the argument.
@bakersdozen2 -
Attacking me doesn’t make you any less chickenshit.
@tgwiy -
She is pretending as though hitchens didn’t argue against craig’s position, which in reality he did at great length.
@agnophilo -
Your arguments are nothing more than reassertions that I’ve already addressed. At this point you’re presenting little than a virtual temper tantrum.
You leave me wondering if this is an example of the morally principled atheism you’re always trumpeting.
Warning: Your next serious of tantrums will be deleted.
Patience is a virtue to a point, but putting up with your irrational behavior is silly on my part.
No it’s not an interesting perspective, it’s a sad one that people who believe in god can’t support it but rather try and box people who don’t into some corner with word games, (why I can’t imagine, nor can I imagine why it would make a bit of difference to an atheist either way).
Making atheism into something besides a definition is a folly beyond my means to express in polite conversation.
@bakersdozen2 -
“The thought of deriving my worth (the worth of anyone) from
the authority of human consensus is frightening. People here on Xanga declare others to be of no worth simply by virtue of mere disagreement.”
So true. Sounds pretty tolerant to me.
The ironic thing is that materialists and atheists get so angry with Creationists and yet at the same time don’t fully believe in free will of thought. Many of them believe that our tendencies toward certain beliefs come down to a mix of random chemicals interacting in the brain. Therefore, you and I are Creationists because chemicals tell us to be and atheists are atheists because chemicals tell them that there is no god. If this were true, the atheists’ anger and blatant hatred in these debates can be compared to a man yelling at his television, because it won’t cook his dinner. Very ironic.
@Da__Vinci -
I’ll be addressing this in my next blog. But the fact is, Dr. Craig gave 5 premises for his position that God does exist.
As far as the “word game” accusation is concerned, WLC did not want to debate Hitchens at first because ,as brilliant as r. Hitchens may be, he is not a scholar. WLC was pressed by Biola university to do the debate because Hitchens is a best selling author and popularizer of the New Atheist position. It is not the case that some hapless atheist was minding his own business at home and was dragged into a debate unwillingly.
Dr. Craig does not have the ability to extract from Mr. Hitchens a position he does not hold. He also did not force Christopher Hitchens to agree to argue from the position “There is no god”. If his only defense is: “there is no evidence”, well, it was a poor decision to agree to debate in the first place.
@bakersdozen2 -
Yes, censorship is always the mark of someone with a sound argument.
@Grungefan -
And you think atheists exist because it’s in “god’s plan”. Doesn’t stop you being a condescending jerk.
@Celestial_Teapot - Have you ever tried to search a vid for a particular phrase? That’s why I always strongly prefer text.
@bakersdozen2 - Craig had the affirmative position and Hitchens the negative. If the affirmative position fails to make a prima facie case, it loses and the negative position doesn’t even have to present anything. Otoh, if the affirmative position presents a case, even a weak one, and the negative position ignores it, the affirmative position wins. As everyone seems to be agreed that Hitchens failed to address Craig’s case, it seems obvious that Craig won the debate.
An alternative possibility for the negative position is to construct a competitive alternative that is more plausible than the affirmative position. This is much more difficult than attacking the affirmative case.
It seems that Craig hasn’t made a transcript of the debate available on his website yet.
@agnophilo - fyi
@TheNewSeminarian@revelife - ”Hitchens admission that he could not make a statement that atheism is true is devastating.”
If one takes the atheist position, rather than the agnostic position, one must give evidence for one’s case, since it makes an actual metaphysical claim. Hitchens doesn’t seem to know this. Claiming that God doesn’t exist, which is the strong atheist position, requires presenting strong evidence. Claiming that one doesn’t think that God exists, which is the weak atheist position, requires presenting some evidence for one’s position. An agnostic position doesn’t require any evidence.
@soccerdadforlife -
When you make the statement “I BELIEVE there is no god”
you’ve made an affirmative position which was Craig’s point.
“belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer . faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof . credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.” Merriam-Webster
@agnophilo -
Refusing to allow insult to be called “sound argument” is called wisdom. Deleting rude comments is reasonable behavior.
@soccerdadforlife -
It isn’t in transcript form on reasonablefaith. Apparently the transcripts are made of debates that don’t have clear video or audio quality. Most are on youtube. The rest are available through podcasts which is usually how I get them.
@Grungefan -
The memes argument. That’s exactly right!
@bakersdozen2 - So there were two affirmative cases? Sounds like an issue to take up with the promoter.
@agnophilo - ”And you think atheists exist because it’s in “god’s plan”. Doesn’t stop you being a condescending jerk.”
Not true, Mark! I would believe that if I was a Calvinist, but as I am not, I believe people have free will to choose to believe what they wish. I believe Atheists are atheists, because they choose to be. I am a Christian, because I choose to be. There is a definite difference betweeen God’s will and God’s plan. That comment was maybe a little condescending, but I was just trying to make a point. I don’t understand why atheists get so mad in these debates and have to call people names (Not meaning you. I do understand that you did not call me stupid) and demean their value as a human being because they disagree with your worldview. I’m just pointing out that it is kind of ironic if that person has no free will to choose what they are going to believe, because of chemicals in their brains. I disagree with atheists, homosexuals, progressives etc, but I can respect their right to believe what they wish to believe without demeaning their humanity. I can do this, because a persons’ value under my worldview is dependent upon their identity as a creature made in the very image of God Himself. This means that God loves everyone. Even people I disagree with you (even you. Maybe especially you, Mark). And if God loves a person, then I ought to love them as well if I am truly trying to follow Jesus’ model.
Zach
@soccerdadforlife -
There is the position verses the substance.
The positions being the affirmative (Craig) and the negative (Hitchens). However if you are going to assert a belief that there is no god, then yes, you have to provide substance for that belief/ assertion.
@agnophilo -
atheism is the proposition that theism is false. how could atheism then not be true? that’s incoherent. further, to say that atheism is a rejection of theism means that it’s not a lack of belief that theism is true, for babies and trees also lack such beliefs, and no one would characterize that as a rejection of theism.
@bakersdozen2 -
“The memes argument. That’s exactly right!”
What is that? Never heard of it! Btw thanks for posting this video. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Of all of the neodarwinian atheists, I think Hitchens is my favorite. He’s fairly witty and entertaining. He’s definitely a brillian man, but I get the feeling he has had some very serious pain in his life that hinders him from believing in a Creator. I just hope that he can one day come to experience God’s love and see that He was working even in those tough times when He didn’t seem to be there.
@Da__Vinci -
to call this “word games” is an effective way of immunizing oneself from substantiating his position. the point is, what is atheism? hitchens is inconsistent with how he defines it, for saying that it’s the negation of a proposition ENTAILS that it is itself a proposition, and it makes no sense to say that a lack of belief is true. saying that the debate is over semantics is not the same thing as calling it a “word game”. semantics is extremely significant in an area where it determines burdens of proof.
@Grungefan -
You’re welcome! It’s a “new theory” regarding what you described.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
@agnophilo -
“You do not have to prove the tooth fairy does not exist to justify not believing in it”
That’s true but irrelevant; you don’t have to prove the tooth fairy does not exist to justify believing that it does not exist.
@nyclegodesi24 -
You seem to be ignoring the point. I reject the existence of bigfoot not because I can prove it isn’t real, but because I have no reason to suppose it is. I do not believe in the existence of bigfoot, and don’t think you ought to either unless you have evidence I do not have access to.
That is not an assertion, it is a rejection of a proposition on the grounds of insufficient evidence. He was making a grammatical point, which you twisted to mean something else.
@nyclegodesi24 -
I think you mis-read what I said. You just repeated it as if you were contradicting me.
@agnophilo -
You tell me the position that Mr. Hitchens was taking then. The debate is “Does god exist”
Craig is saying He does and offers 5 premises to support his position
Hitchens says… he probably doesn’t?
Do you think that Dr. Craig and the moderator and sponsors would have agreed to a debate with such indecisive terms? It would be a waste of time.
Besides, Hitchens betrays the strength of his belief in “no god” by using such hyperbolic language. He is an author who has made millions of dollars aggressively arguing the atheist’s position.
If I called you a coward (whether it be true or not) you would consider it an insult. In fact, you are very sensitive to even the perception of condescension and are eager to point it out. Why the double standard?
@agnophilo -
But we could develop very good reasons for believing that Big Foot, Celestial Teapots, etc., don’t exist, by developing predictions to confirm and disconfirm his existence. That’s done a lot by scientists. That’s why I believe that Big Foot does not exist.
“That is not an assertion”
At the very best, I’ll say that Hitchens’ statement is equivocal. It’s possible that one can reject proposition A without affirming the negation of proposition A, though it seems dubious to me.
You wrote:
“You do not have to prove the tooth fairy does not exist to justify not believing in it”
I wrote: “you don’t have to prove the tooth fairy does not exist to justify believing that it does not exist.”
Unless you’re about to deny the distinction between *not believing X* and *believing the negation of X*, then I think you’d see my point.
@agnophilo -
Sorry, you blew it. There is nothing rational, moral or manly about about your behavior. I seriously doubt you would have the courage to speak this way to me in front of my husband.
I don’t have the time to teach you manners and it really is not my responsibility anyway. My comment section is open to all who would like to have a rational adult conversation. You’re free to comment when you can do that.
@nyclegodesi24 -
Atheists needn’t prove anything, hence the word game they continually get drawn into. It’s as if they actually think that the mindset of the Christian is open to anything they will ever say. It’s monotonous.
@Da__Vinci -
O.K., Russ. Then why even debate the subject? I’m being serious.
@bakersdozen2 -
I’m not debating it, I’m commenting.
@Da__Vinci -
I know you are just commenting. I’m talking about Hitchens and every other atheist who agrees to debate theists.
But the fact remains, you and Agno have taken the opportunity to speak on Hitchen’s behalf…. to defend his position. You certainly don’t have to, but here we are.
@Da__Vinci -
Christians like myself aren’t open to people who propose no concepts but insist on criticizing ours. Provide an alternative view instead of merely “commenting” all the time. If not, then you have no comparative basis to judge my postulating God to explain the contingency/morality/consciousness. It’s on the weight of alternative explanations that criticisms of one explanation pose any value to the plausibility of another explanation.
@nyclegodesi24 -
That x idea is not credible or has no explanatory power is not evidence for y proposition. It doesn’t work that way. You cannot, as many fundamentalists try, attack evolution or big bang cosmology in order to prove the existence of a deity or the validity of any religion. The criticisms some atheists make of belief in deities and of organized religion, the bible etc stand or fall on their own merits regardless of whether they provide an alternative.
Zeus is not “proven” until secular philosophers explain lightning. That’s just not how it works.
@agnophilo -
It actually is. Consider Bayesian probability, in which a prior probability of a claim is weighed against countervailing hypotheses, yielding a lower posterior probability.
“Zeus is not “proven” until secular philosophers explain lightning. That’s just not how it works.”
But that’s not what I implied, was it. If x and y are the only possible explanations, to nullify X is to validate y. Zeus isn’t validated at the failure of secular philosophy, but that’s because there are many other candidates for explanation other than Zeus (a particular deity) and a natural explanation. Between two candidates for explanation, it’s different.
@bakersdozen2 -
I haven’t tried to defend Hitchens. He doesn’t need any help. He looked to me as if he was exasperated at being asked the wrong questions yet again. Questions that demand a specific answer which is designed to be inadequate, like someone on the stand in a court being cross examined by a lawyer using the ‘rules’ to get him to say something incriminating or to say only half truths.
@nyclegodesi24 -
It’s been made clear that your search for explanations counter to the ones you already hold are not something you would accept, except of course to argue against, so why would I offer one to you. I’ve stated my position clearly in the past on my own blog. Morality has nothing to do with god as an ultimate source. It is a philosophy stemming from anthropological and sociological roots reaching back to the time that humans formed groups or communities to live together. It is still in a constant state of refinement and is not objective in the least as a topic or a whole, however it does have some basic tenets that might make it look objective, but these are constants instead. It’s always wrong to do somethings, but not because god said so, conversely it’s not always wrong to do some other wrong things depending on the circumstances. It’s the circumstances that objective moralists have difficulty with. Lack of flexibility, or fear, or just plain not being able to think a moral dilemma through properly…it just depends on the person.
@nyclegodesi24 -
Magical explanations are not actual explanations, cannot be tested for accuracy, are not supported by evidence etc. And you are essentially saying that an argument from ignorance is a valid form of argument. If we have x explanation for say quantum strangeness and someone asserts with no logic or evidence that a god named jeff is responsible for quantum strangeness, if x explanation falls through then jeff the magical quantum god is somehow proven or credible.
That is not evidence.
@agnophilo -
You are misrepresenting what I’ve said which is nothing more than a huge time waster. Of course I do not mind; would expect you to defend your position. You act as though you’re the only one being insulted which I find odd. I haven’t insulted you. Examining a position is not insult. But above and beyond that, I find it tiresome to have to see your replies in my inbox filled with hateful language not valid arguments. So I’m de;eting you again.
@Da__Vinci -
“It’s been made clear that your search for explanations counter to the ones you already hold are not something you would accept”
This is a bit uncharitable; I’m sure if we knew each other a bit more you wouldn’t have come to this conclusion as hastily as you do now. I’m not getting into a head on argument for morality as based on God, since that was besides the point; you’ve just offered an alternative explanation to morality, and that’s great: that’s a substantive reply that I as a theist would respect and would love having a chat about. But notice that you’re not merely offering that explanation as someone lacks a belief about God. you’re offering that as someone who believes that morality can be explained naturalistically.
@agnophilo -
“Magical explanations are not actual explanations, cannot be tested for accuracy, are not supported by evidence etc.”
Why are they not actual explanations? Why can’t they be tested/confirmed? Do you mean that they are not, by definition or principle or something?
“If we have x explanation for say quantum strangeness and someone asserts with no logic or evidence that a god named jeff is responsible for quantum strangeness, if x explanation falls through then jeff the magical quantum god is somehow proven or credible.”
No, because once again, X and God-named-Jeff aren’t the only two candidates for explaining quantum strangeness. You’re once again misconstruing the point.
@nyclegodesi24 -
I would respond in-depth, but bakersdozen keeps deleting my comments, so why bother.
@agnophilo -
No, go ahead. Notice that I haven’t blocked you. As long as you don’t insult, (regardless of how well deserved you think it may be) I won’t delete your comment.
@agnophilo -
Ok.
@bakersdozen2 -
I criticized and you did not listen. Ironically, my criticism is that you chronically do not listen.
@agnophilo -
You didn’t criticize; you insulted. There is a difference. One I know that you’re aware of because you yourself are sensitive to even the “tone” of a response.
Criticize:
verb [ trans. ]
1 indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way : they criticized the failure of Western nations to adequately resettle Indochinese refugees | technicians were criticized for defective workmanship.
2 form and express a sophisticated judgment of (a literary or artistic work) : a literary text may be criticized on two grounds: the semantic and the expressive.
Insult:verb |inˈsəlt| [ trans. ]
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse : you’re insulting the woman I love | [as adj. ] ( insulting) their language is crude and insulting to women.
noun |ˈinˌsəlt|
1 a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action : he hurled insults at us | he saw the book as a deliberate insult to the Church.
• a thing so worthless or contemptible as to be offensive : the present offer is an absolute insult.
2 Medicine an event or occurrence that causes damage to a tissue or organ : the movement of the bone causes a severe tissue insult.
If you want to make an argument then make one, but leave out the insulting descriptors. And I mean for everyone you reply to on my blog.
@bakersdozen2 -
You refuse to even acknowledge or deal with my criticism still. You hide behind a dictionary.