Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Oh, sure. I do like to argue, and I do like to educate as well.

I suppose that if someone like stu came to my door ala a Mormon on a mission, I might just politely say "Sorry, not interested." I've engaged them before, I know the rap already, and I know their mind is properly closed.

Message boards have a different flavor because there is an audience and input from various members.

I do find it fascinating that those who support science so much, are often to be found to be so irrational and dogmatic when their scientific theory is questioned or a competing theory comes along.

My guess is these failed theists traded their sincere faith in God as a child, once lost, for a dogmatic and angry faith toward theism and a rigid faith in non God as well as a detest of those who are still theists.

With no real argument to support intelligent design, mainly because there isn’t one, your arguing is always couched to turn attention away from that problem, trying to mislead, un-educate, allege science is wrong, suggest everyone else is wrong through making silly comparisons, just for not having the illogical and irrational emotional feelings, ideals and beliefs you do.

Were intelligent design anything like a sound proposition, you might be able to present a rationalized approach.
Because it isn't any kind of a credible proposition at all, you're often found personalizing the argument as you do above and elsewhere.
Attacking from emotional reaction and demanding answers to illogical sham questions rather than reason, projecting your own flaws onto everything and anyone who doesn't fall for ID nonsense.
Creationists do that.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Stu, try controlling your emotions and think....

since the nobel prize winner who you quoted (Szotack) ... stated in 2009 in scientific american that there is no known pathway from non life to life....

How is is fricken possible that YOU or any real scientist or De Duve would be arguing chance alone caused abiogenesis. By science your argument is dead ass wrong.

No Jem, you try and control your emotion. "Fricken possible"??..... you should calm down.
Notice that Ricter ? Perhaps it would be more warranted in future if you directed comment first in response to the initial 'emotion' accusation, rather than to my reply, which I'd say would have been a more even handed approach with 777zz.

I don't make the argument -chance alone- caused abiogenesis. That's your strawman argument which is reflecting deceit in making it, and ignorance in expecting it to hold any credibility.

Both biochemistry and therefore abiogenesis are about chemical reaction. It is known how chemical reaction comes about. To a biochemist, chance, and chance alone is possibility (in this regard, of abiogenesis) due to favorable combinations of chemical reaction.

• "The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." Christian de Duve

Unequivocal in any context.
So the favorable combinations of circumstances .. Life from nonliving matter....by which substances, molecules, chemicals, are changed .... that they even come into contact with each other.....that they react specifically…. "categorical: chance and chance alone.....with only natural selection to sift its effects."

You would understand that much if you were at all interested in getting to the science or the facts.

Changing the issue to Dr.Szostak , again trying to insert your own words and meaning over his as you did with Dr. de Duve, won't get away from the fact that de Duve said unambiguously .." categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all ".

There’s no room whatsoever for the supernatural creator you are always trying to force mendaciously as an ID creationist into Nobel prize winning science.
Unless that is, you are going to change the word God into Chance.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

It's slightly intriguing then as to why you would make your comment in response to my reply and not to 777'zz earlier one, which had for no real reason already accused me of emotionalism. That's straight after making over a dozen posts in succession of creationists' nonsense in what might well appear to be a fit of high emotion.

While you may be trying to be even handed , are you not accurately following events, or do you just reflexively direct criticism my way first for some reason?

I hadn't looked at this thread in a while, since I had one of you on ignore. ; )

So when I jumped in yesterday, it just been you two back and forth for a bit. Your comment was the nearest to the end with a "kettle, pot" statement in it, so that's where I jumped. You'll note that 777 got the same argument from me, just a bit later.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

I think it is clearly revealing that I am not trying to make an argument for ID.

It is not necessary.

Your entire emotional reaction and flailing like a fish on the beach is that I am simply demonstrating the numerous flaws and weakness in the non ID argument.

By showing the flaw in your position doesn't make my position correct.

That's not my argument.

My argument is that the non ID argument resides completely on the concept of random ignorant chance, of life from non life, etc.

Most people who are non thinking, don't question the first assumptions of science.

Why is that? Why is it that random ignorant chance is assumed to be a fact, when in reality it is not a fact.

No force of random ignorant chance has been found. No ability to predict when and where some magical evolution will take place on this basis.

So illustrating the weakness of your position, should, if you were intellectually honest...which of course you are not...produce some skepticism of the foundation of the theory you grip with as great a faith as any theist grips their belief in God.

No, your position is really no different than Bush's position when he said you are either with us, or them.

Your position is flawed, based on unproved and unprovable assumptions, with a gaping hole in the ability to prove or predict, with major gaps in the fossil records, with no evidence of a missing link...it goes on and on how weak the evolutionary magical thinking really is.

However, I fully suspect you will now go on another rant that will demonstrate how reactive you become when the weakness in your position is displayed.

I am not arguing for design, I believe in design...it is obvious in my opinion, and any reasoned person, I believe when they see the problems with the non design argument...would become more agnostic than atheist....less inclined to attack theism...as they simply don't know.

You however in your declarations of knowing but not declaring, all caps screaming that is has to be ignorant chance, are no different than an soapbox preacher in the town's square blathering away in full faith and ignorance that he knows the truth.

Quote from stu:

With no real argument to support intelligent design, mainly because there isn’t one, your arguing is always couched to turn attention away from that problem, trying to mislead, un-educate, allege science is wrong, suggest everyone else is wrong through making silly comparisons, just for not having the illogical and irrational emotional feelings, ideals and beliefs you do.

Were intelligent design anything like a sound proposition, you might be able to present a rationalized approach.
Because it isn't any kind of a credible proposition at all, you're often found personalizing the argument as you do above and elsewhere.
Attacking from emotional reaction and demanding answers to illogical sham questions rather than reason, projecting your own flaws onto everything and anyone who doesn't fall for ID nonsense.
Creationists do that.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

I hadn't looked at this thread in a while, since I had one of you on ignore. ; )

So when I jumped in yesterday, it just been you two back and forth for a bit. Your comment was the nearest to the end with a "kettle, pot" statement in it, so that's where I jumped. You'll note that 777 got the same argument from me, just a bit later.

Ok, so you jumped in, made a remark without checking the actual exchanges. But the same situation was again repeated later. I inserted a note to you in the post to mark it .
Sounding emotional, then accusing the counterparty of being emotional, with the respondent then pointing out the fallacy, is not the two parties in the exchange doing equal things.
It’s not really "kettle pot" either, is it ?

I'm only suggesting you may not agree with what I say, but that shouldn't stop someone like yourself, appearing as trying to be more even handed, from discriminating those differences a little more accurately.

 

[stu]

Of course you are arguing for ID. You've already stated on a number of occasions you want to see intelligent design taught in school.

How come creationists have to be so dishonest in everything they say.

There is no argument being made that resides completely on the concept of random ignorant chance.
That's just an ID'ers worse than strawman approach to everything.

How come you creationists can only concoct sham statements to shout against.

You've just produced yet another post trying to totally avoid any argument for ID which you also call "design" .

How come as an ID creationist, you can't offer anything to properly support ID...... not even its name.

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I think it is clearly revealing that I am not trying to make an argument for ID.

It is not necessary.

Your entire emotional reaction and flailing like a fish on the beach is that I am simply demonstrating the numerous flaws and weakness in the non ID argument.

By showing the flaw in your position doesn't make my position correct.

That's not my argument.

My argument is that the non ID argument resides completely on the concept of random ignorant chance, of life from non life, etc.

Most people who are non thinking, don't question the first assumptions of science.

Why is that? Why is it that random ignorant chance is assumed to be a fact, when in reality it is not a fact.

No force of random ignorant chance has been found. No ability to predict when and where some magical evolution will take place on this basis.

So illustrating the weakness of your position, should, if you were intellectually honest...which of course you are not...produce some skepticism of the foundation of the theory you grip with as great a faith as any theist grips their belief in God.

No, your position is really no different than Bush's position when he said you are either with us, or them.

Your position is flawed, based on unproved and unprovable assumptions, with a gaping hole in the ability to prove or predict, with major gaps in the fossil records, with no evidence of a missing link...it goes on and on how weak the evolutionary magical thinking really is.

However, I fully suspect you will now go on another rant that will demonstrate how reactive you become when the weakness in your position is displayed.

I am not arguing for design, I believe in design...it is obvious in my opinion, and any reasoned person, I believe when they see the problems with the non design argument...would become more agnostic than atheist....less inclined to attack theism...as they simply don't know.

You however in your declarations of knowing but not declaring, all caps screaming that is has to be ignorant chance, are no different than an soapbox preacher in the town's square blathering away in full faith and ignorance that he knows the truth.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Ok, so you jumped in, made a remark without checking the actual exchanges. But the same situation was again repeated later. I inserted a note to you in the post to mark it .
Sounding emotional, then accusing the counterparty of being emotional, with the respondent then pointing out the fallacy, is not the two parties in the exchange doing equal things.
It’s not really "kettle pot" either, is it ?

I'm only suggesting you may not agree with what I say, but that shouldn't stop someone like yourself, appearing as trying to be more even handed, from discriminating those differences a little more accurately.

I did notice jem's emotional reply and comment on emotion, but it came after my jumping in point. I see no point in arguing with everyone about emotion, probably the majority will agree that they have an emotional attachment of some sort to this debate, else they wouldn't be in it.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

I did notice jem's emotional reply and comment on emotion, but it came after my jumping in point. I see no point in arguing with everyone about emotion, probably the majority will agree that they have an emotional attachment of some sort to this debate, else they wouldn't be in it.

You might as well say everyone has an emotional attachment to every debate they are ever involved in.
But usually people don't go around appearing emotional, then point a finger to say everyone else is being emotional who doesn't agree with their ideas.

Now you are just essentially making that same fallacious emotion argument too.

The universe doesn’t need a God in the explanation of its existence.
How is that anything like an emotional argument.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

You might as well say everyone has an emotional attachment to every debate they are ever involved in.
But usually people don't go around appearing emotional, then point a finger to say everyone else is being emotional who doesn't agree with their ideas.

Now you are just essentially making that same fallacious emotion argument too.

The universe doesn’t need a Creator as explanation for its existence.
How is that anything like an emotional argument.

What I wrote when I jumped in: "You are both strongly emotionally attached, this thread shows that."

Yes, I think everyone has an emotional attachment to any debate they're in, that's common sense.

So, what's fallacious about that?

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

What I wrote when I jumped in: "You are both strongly emotionally attached, this thread shows that."

Yes, I think everyone has an emotional attachment to any debate they're in, that's common sense.

So, what's fallacious about that?

Well, I can go over it again if you like... but look, you just said

"I see no point in arguing with everyone about emotion"


So why did you jump in anyway!?