Hitchens documentary

[oetzi13]

Finally a documentary to honor this great man:

 

[a1pha]

to honor this great man

A hero of mine. Thank you for posting.
RIP, CH.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

Of the four 'New Atheist Prophets,' Hitchens is the one I liked the least. He certainly seems very antithetical to the mentality we try and cultivate here on The Nexus. His support for the War on Terror and his drift towards neoconservatism later in life alone stand as major critiques of his beliefs.

As for the whole religion thing, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the rest of them insist on making strong claims about religion and God with just as little evidence as the religious people they're striking out against. The only 'rational' position on God is agonosticism, and if they were truly committed to skeptical inquiry into the nature of the universe, they should acknowledge that.

Blessings
~ND

 

[travsha]

Of the four 'New Atheist Prophets,' Hitchens is the one I liked the least. He certainly seems very antithetical to the mentality we try and cultivate here on The Nexus. His support for the War on Terror and his drift towards neoconservatism later in life alone stand as major critiques of his beliefs.

As for the whole religion thing, Hitchens, Dawkins, and the rest of them insist on making strong claims about religion and God with just as little evidence as the religious people they're striking out against. The only 'rational' position on God is agonosticism, and if they were truly committed to skeptical inquiry into the nature of the universe, they should acknowledge that.

Blessings
~ND

Very well said. Skepticism isnt really skepticism without an open mind to accompany it. The true skeptic must also be skeptical of themselves and their own views which many skeptics forget....

 

[pitubo]

The true skeptic must also be skeptical of themselves and their own views which many skeptics forget....

Many men question authority. Few question their own authority.

 

[Koornut]

He was a master-debater

 

[geeg30]

The only 'rational' position on God is agonosticism, and if they were truly committed to skeptical inquiry into the nature of the universe, they should acknowledge that.

Blessings
~ND

Why is this the only rational position? There is no evidence for any deity of any sort. The only claim that might have merit is that a deity created our universe - which can also be shown to have been created by natural means. All other claims fail scrutiny, so while most Atheists know that an intelligent entity might have caused the universe (it could be possible however unlikely) the claims of the religious fall into the realms of wishful thinking as they also truly don't know. Therefore the default position should be atheism as until some proof can be shown that any religious claim is true then why the need for a deity? After all the default on Thor, Seti, Ra, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Celestial Teapot etc etc is atheistic why agnoticize current religious deities?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

The only 'rational' position on God is agonosticism, and if they were truly committed to skeptical inquiry into the nature of the universe, they should acknowledge that.

Blessings
~ND

Why is this the only rational position? There is no evidence for any deity of any sort. The only claim that might have merit is that a deity created our universe - which can also be shown to have been created by natural means.

This emphasized section presents an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The simplest rebuttal to such an assertion is to remind you that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

All other claims fail scrutiny, so while most Atheists know that an intelligent entity might have caused the universe (it could be possible however unlikely) the claims of the religious fall into the realms of wishful thinking as they also truly don't know.

This holds some slippery substitutions, so let me break down what you are saying...

All other claims fail scrutiny

This assumes our scrutiny is capable of absolute knowing/certainty, which it most certainly is not. Just because something fails scrutiny does not mean we have scrutinized correctly (or that we are capable of scrutinizing correctly at a given point in time). Obvious examples appear if we examine technology that lets us see things that were formerly impossible (x-rays, fmris, electron microscopes, etc.). Prior to these inventions, any claims about what these technologies allow us to see would have "failed scrutiny", yet surely you can agree that this is not because the realms these things allow us to see don't exist, but because we lacked the appropriate methods for scrutinizing.

so while most Atheists know that an intelligent entity might have caused the universe (it could be possible however unlikely)

If it's possible (however unlikely you may feel it to be), then that would make agnosticism more rational than atheism, as agnosticism doesn't throw out that possibility, but remains open to it, whereas atheism does not.

Therefore the default position should be atheism as until some proof can be shown that any religious claim is true then why the need for a deity?

Atheism is another belief, one that privileges the "null state" (no god) over any other possibility. As there is as little evidence to support this as the existence of god(s), the only logical position, based on the evidence at this time, is agnosticism (or possibilianism), which posits an uncertainty...a suspension of belief and a position that the validity of (a)theistic claims are unknown and possibly unknowable.

Now, many atheists like to play a semantic game where they assert that "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

However, this is demonstrably false. If you have taken even a moment to consider whether or not god(s) exist(s), then you have a belief about the subject (put simply: yes, no, don't know). Therefore, the assertion that any individual has a true "lack of belief" fails to hold any water, unless you have given it no thought whatsoever, at which point, you couldn't possibly make an assertion about why atheism is anything.

tl;dr - I agree with Nathanial.Dread's assertion wholeheartedly.

 

[pitubo]

Anyone who asserts the existence, plausibility or even possibility of a "god" is obliged to state a positive description of the asserted "god".

Until this is provided, and all participants can agree on the terms, no sensible discussion is possible and public positions of belief or disbelief are simply premature.

Why do we let people get away so easily with not providing basic responsibility for their assertions about "god"? Rather than reflexively countering the unproven we should be questioning the undeclared.

 

[geeg30]

Why is this the only rational position? There is no evidence for any deity of any sort. The only claim that might have merit is that a deity created our universe - which can also be shown to have been created by natural means.

This emphasized section presents an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The simplest rebuttal to such an assertion is to remind you that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

You are quite correct in that fact but lets apply that same rebuttal to other supernatural beings such as vampires, werewolves, demons, dragons, fairies, trolls, orcs etc and hey lets invent a few - 40ft invisible floating humanoids, small 1 million legged mind controlling insects. While there is no evidence for or against the existence of any of these or any that can be thought up the default position is that they do not exist until proven otherwise or are you agnostic about something I have invented?

All other claims fail scrutiny

This assumes our scrutiny is capable of absolute knowing/certainty, which it most certainly is not. Just because something fails scrutiny does not mean we have scrutinized correctly (or that we are capable of scrutinizing correctly at a given point in time). Obvious examples appear if we examine technology that lets us see things that were formerly impossible (x-rays, fmris, electron microscopes, etc.). Prior to these inventions, any claims about what these technologies allow us to see would have "failed scrutiny", yet surely you can agree that this is not because the realms these things allow us to see don't exist, but because we lacked the appropriate methods for scrutinizing.

Are you trying to say we cannot know anything with absolute certainty? How can you be sure?? Why would claims about technologies fail scrutiny? These inventions would surely not exist unless the inventor was fairly sure they would work. Did claims about the Higgs Boson fail scrutiny because I hadn't been proven until the LHC found it? I think not.

so while most Atheists know that an intelligent entity might have caused the universe (it could be possible however unlikely)

If it's possible (however unlikely you may feel it to be), then that would make agnosticism more rational than atheism, as agnosticism doesn't throw out that possibility, but remains open to it, whereas atheism does not.

I don't throw out that possibility either and still don't believe that any gods exist. Am I agnostic or atheist?

Therefore the default position should be atheism as until some proof can be shown that any religious claim is true then why the need for a deity?

Atheism is another belief, one that privileges the "null state" (no god) over any other possibility. As there is as little evidence to support this as the existence of god(s), the only logical position, based on the evidence at this time, is agnosticism (or possibilianism), which posits an uncertainty...a suspension of belief and a position that the validity of (a)theistic claims are unknown and possibly unknowable.

While you are correct in that I cannot truly know whether or not any deity(ies) exist I can however make a reasonable assumption based on the claims of the religious that their chosen deity doesn't.

Now, many atheists like to play a semantic game where they assert that "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

However, this is demonstrably false. If you have taken even a moment to consider whether or not god(s) exist(s), then you have a belief about the subject (put simply: yes, no, don't know). Therefore, the assertion that any individual has a true "lack of belief" fails to hold any water, unless you have given it no thought whatsoever, at which point, you couldn't possibly make an assertion about why atheism is anything.

tl;dr - I agree with Nathanial.Dread's assertion wholeheartedly.

So agnosticism is the belief that you cannot know whether belief or unbelief is tenable? Yes I know that we can't truly know but its good to have an opinion instead of fence sitting:grin:

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Why is this the only rational position? There is no evidence for any deity of any sort. The only claim that might have merit is that a deity created our universe - which can also be shown to have been created by natural means.

This emphasized section presents an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The simplest rebuttal to such an assertion is to remind you that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

You are quite correct in that fact

So, from my perspective, this ends the discussion, as you have ceded that your argument rests on a logical fallacy, thereby effectively rendering conclusions drawn using that line of reasoning meaningless. But as you've taken time to write a lengthy reply, I'll do my best to engage and attempt to highlight the flaws that appear to me

lets apply that same rebuttal to other supernatural beings such as vampires, werewolves, demons, dragons, fairies, trolls, orcs etc and hey lets invent a few - 40ft invisible floating humanoids, small 1 million legged mind controlling insects. While there is no evidence for or against the existence of any of these or any that can be thought up the default position is that they do not exist until proven otherwise or are you agnostic about something I have invented?

So first, I would say that you've made an argument from absurdity...fallacy #2. But ok, I'll bite...

I would direct your attention back to the original discussion, which is about deities, who would, ostensibly, exist within a universal context, no? "Blessed are you, creator of the universe ...etc" and all that jazz. So if you are asking me if I believe so-called "supernatural" beings exist anywhere in the universe, then I would have to say my position is neither one of belief nor disbelief, but the reasoned assertion that the universe is a pretty big place and we have no way of knowing.

To riff on one of the bard's musings...what if imagination is simply a nonlocal viewing phenomenon whereby you catch a glimpse of things that may exist elsewhere in the vastness of creation? Then, surely you could imagine that anything you might imagine could exist...somewhere. Again, back to my original point...at this point in time we have no way of knowing.

All other claims fail scrutiny

This assumes our scrutiny is capable of absolute knowing/certainty, which it most certainly is not. Just because something fails scrutiny does not mean we have scrutinized correctly (or that we are capable of scrutinizing correctly at a given point in time). Obvious examples appear if we examine technology that lets us see things that were formerly impossible (x-rays, fmris, electron microscopes, etc.). Prior to these inventions, any claims about what these technologies allow us to see would have "failed scrutiny", yet surely you can agree that this is not because the realms these things allow us to see don't exist, but because we lacked the appropriate methods for scrutinizing.

Are you trying to say we cannot know anything with absolute certainty? How can you be sure?? Why would claims about technologies fail scrutiny? These inventions would surely not exist unless the inventor was fairly sure they would work. Did claims about the Higgs Boson fail scrutiny because I hadn't been proven until the LHC found it? I think not.

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. There are routinely phenomena we cannot explain because we have no way of measuring them. Just because we cannot detect something does not necessarily mean it does not exist. Again, this is why the position you present from the beginning is fallacious, you are claiming that the fact that there is not evidence of god (in your opinion) is equivalent to evidence that there is no god.

Just because you can't see FM radio waves doesn't mean they're not there...you just need a device capable of receiving them.

so while most Atheists know that an intelligent entity might have caused the universe (it could be possible however unlikely)

If it's possible (however unlikely you may feel it to be), then that would make agnosticism more rational than atheism, as agnosticism doesn't throw out that possibility, but remains open to it, whereas atheism does not.

I don't throw out that possibility either and still don't believe that any gods exist. Am I agnostic or atheist?

Based on the way you've worded that sentence, it appears your belief in a lack of gods supercedes your openness to the possibility of gods existing. I'm not here to tell you your beliefs, that's for you to untangle :lol:

Therefore the default position should be atheism as until some proof can be shown that any religious claim is true then why the need for a deity?

Atheism is another belief, one that privileges the "null state" (no god) over any other possibility. As there is as little evidence to support this as the existence of god(s), the only logical position, based on the evidence at this time, is agnosticism (or possibilianism), which posits an uncertainty...a suspension of belief and a position that the validity of (a)theistic claims are unknown and possibly unknowable.

While you are correct in that I cannot truly know whether or not any deity(ies) exist I can however make a reasonable assumption based on the claims of the religious that their chosen deity doesn't.

Again, you are not talking about evidence, but your own assumptions and beliefs...this doesn't give the position any more traction than it started with...

So agnosticism is the belief that you cannot know whether belief or unbelief is tenable? Yes I know that we can't truly know but its good to have an opinion instead of fence sitting:grin:

Again, agnosticism is the supposition that there are things that we may not know and/or may not be able to know. I would call it an acknowledgement that we human beings are tiny little creatures on a tiny little rock orbiting a tiny little fusion furnace in the vastness of creation. It's awfully arrogant to think we have a grasp on anything remotely approaching the "big picture" or that we can talk in certainties about things that we have no way of knowing.

You can call that fence sitting if you like, but if we have no way of knowing, then disbelief and belief (atheism/theism) both require a leap of faith, whereas agnosticism is the only logical approach given how little we truly know about the universe/existence/reality/etc, taking us back to ND's initial assertion and coming beautifully full circle to end this post.

Cheers! :thumb_up:

 

[geeg30]

Just wondering if you ascribe agnosticism to every unverifiable claim or do you make reasoned inquiry to help form a choice on whether to believe that claim or not?

Also when does an argument of ignorance become an argument of absurdity? What gives a deity more credence than any other supernatural/mythological being?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Just wondering if you ascribe agnosticism to every unverifiable claim or do you make reasoned inquiry to help form a choice on whether to believe that claim or not?

To reiterate (for the fourth time?)..."Agnosticism is the view that, the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable."

I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.

Also when does an argument of ignorance become an argument of absurdity? What gives a deity more credence than any other supernatural/mythological being?

I think you misunderstood my point (or the premise of the fallacies in question).

By substituting ghosties and ghoulies and wee little beasties for "gods" you were attempting to change the parameters of the discussion from a discussion of the existence of god(s) within a universal context to supernatural beings within an earthly context. This was ultimately an attempt "to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."

Or in other words, you appeared to be stating:

If you believe in the possibility of god's existence within the universe,
Then you must also believe in the existence of ghosties, ghoulies, and wee little beasties on earth

Simply put, statement 2 does not logically follow from statement 1. This is also why I explicitly stated that such things may very well exist in a universal context...how could we possibly know?

This also goes back to your first question. I feel that currently unverifiable claims about metaphysical phenomena and that which may/may not exist within a universal context are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

I think we've derailed the thread enough, so I'll request that if you'd like to continue this discussion, you make a new thread for it

 

[T.Harper]

at least he got his ass waterboarded
but
too bad the iraqi's didnt do it.

 

[pitubo]

I feel that currently unverifiable claims about metaphysical phenomena and that which may/may not exist within a universal context are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

Whatever your "god(s)" may be, I simply doubt that they could phenomena. Noumina perhaps. Regardless, ill-defined nature (IMHO the epithet "universal context" is no more than a hollow attempt to mask this) of "god(s)" precludes any rational or sensible discussion.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I feel that currently unverifiable claims about metaphysical phenomena and that which may/may not exist within a universal context are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

Whatever your "god(s)" may be, I simply doubt that they could phenomena. Noumina perhaps.

I suppose you'd have to ask those who would claim to have experienced metaphysical or divine manifestations...

My position is simply that I don't know...and that both theism and atheism require a leap of faith (which agnosticism does not). That's all




If anyone wishes further discussion not related to the OP, that should take place in a new thread.