Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

"Not so nice absurd reasoning you have there....."

No, concepts can't be forced on people, the stubborn and dishonest will fight those concepts...even when they are proved to be logically true.

Like the fact that atheists who do indeed have a concept of God...for Heaven's sake, they must necessarily have a concept of God that they accept or reject...because they use the word God constantly in their rantings...unless you want to admit right here and now that when atheists use the word God, they are talking complete nonsense, which would render their entire thought process as vain and useless as the foundation of their argument for non God is without a viable concept.

So, honestly, atheists have a concept of God, which they reject, and therefore have the belief in non God.

Hitchens said it himself which I quoted previously.

"You want your God , fine. Keep it to yourself."

You wan't your non God, fine. Keep it to yourself.

"My argument is with yours and others' never endingly various and ludicrous concepts of it."

My argument is with yours and others' never ending various and ludicrous attempts of trying to deny your own belief system is a belief system.

I know what a double negative is...do you know what a reverse tautology is?



Quote from stu:

Not so nice absurd reasoning you have there.....

But then your argument for God , for faith, as can be seen quite clearly, relies entirely on a rhetoric of absurd reasoning.

You can't force concepts onto people however much you believe or wish you could.

Your suggestion that every adult must have a concept in the style western civilization describes because they were exposed and brought up in that world is downright Orwellian.
This is not a totalitarian state where people must have concepts.
Do you live in North Korea or something?

Of course I'm mute about God. You don't mention it, then I've no reason to.

But I'm not mute about nonsensical , ridiculous and often dangerous delusions riding on the back of faith and belief like yours.
Especially where they insinuate themselves into society.

You want your God , fine. Keep it to yourself.
My argument is with yours and others' never endingly various and ludicrous concepts of it.

I have no concept positive or negative.
No reason to. Non of it makes any sense.

And you can't make me Herr OptionalZzz, by hope wish or force, as much as it sounds like you want to.



ps do you actually know what a double negative is!?
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Careful study of most of the promoted atheist thinking reveals using language to hide their real condition...i.e. they are true believers as much as theists are true believers.

They have full faith that their "beliefs" are superior, just like so many theists do with their beliefs.

Flip side of the same coin...only the true agnostic lives on the edge of the coin between faith in God and faith in non God.

However, true agnostics rarely exist in practice, since the moment one has any concept of God, the tendency of the mind and intellect is to make a decision to hold as true or false the concept of God that they now have conceived in their mind and intellect.

Much of the debate from the atheists is intellectually dishonest sophistry...but hey, if that works for them, I'm cool with it. They have the right to believe whatever they like...
More...

The problem with your statement is that you're assuming that everyone has a strong emotional investment in either theism or atheism. In the real world many people who aren't emotional zealots have a more moderate sway and belief system regarding the existence of god. The average informed moderate if asked about the existence of god would respond, "Well, the first cause argument seems to make a lot of sense but the atheistic arguments make a lot of sense as well."
 
No, I am not assuming that everyone has a strong emotional investment in atheism or theism, or even agnosticism.

What I am addressing at the regular ET vocal atheists, who do appear to have a strong emotional investment in their position. I have no problem that they are passionate about their position, or emotionally driven...that's human nature when it comes to what people believe deeply.

However, is it consistent logically for people to rant and rave in a similar manner to those they denounce, and claim that their ranting and raving is proper...because they are simply being logical?

Do you read what they write, and think to yourself, "They are dispassionate, they don't have an emotional investment, they don't succumb to name calling, they always stay detached and purely intellectual, devoid of any emotionalism whatsoever."

When Hitchens was quoted as admitting to atheistic belief...then what is the problem with admitting to atheistic belief?

So, atheists think their belief system is better than theistic belief systems...so? There is no proof on either side that meets any test that is objective and devoid of the human experience...so, why do the self proclaimed "reasonable" folks end up acting just like the people they claim to be "reasonably" superior to?

They are entitled to their opinions, right? Sure thing, and they are entitled to be emotional about them, and they are entitled to lie about the degree of emotionalism they embody, and I am free to point out the logical inconsistency between their rap and their real world act...right?

But truly...are their opinions (the ET vocal atheists) expressed in a manner that is devoid of emotional investment?

Have you watched any of Hitchens debates or comments where he is proffering up his opinion on theism?

He hardly comes across as some detached academic intellectual...his bitterness, and rage are palpable.

Maybe his rage and bitterness is right, and or deserved...I can't say...but that there is rage and bitterness, and lots of emotionalism is undeniable.





Quote from NeoRio1:

The problem with your statement is that you're assuming that everyone has a strong emotional investment in either theism or atheism. In the real world many people who aren't emotional zealots have a more moderate sway and belief system regarding theism and atheism. The average informed moderate if asked about the existence of god would respond, "Well, the first cause argument seems to make a lot of sense but the atheistic arguments make a lot of sense as well."
More...
 
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yZArl9hHlbQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

No, I am not assuming that everyone has a strong emotional investment in atheism or theism, or even agnosticism.

What I am addressing at the regular ET vocal atheists, who do appear to have a strong emotional investment in their position. I have no problem that they are passionate about their position, or emotionally driven...that's human nature when it comes to what people believe deeply.

However, is it consistent logically for people to rant and rave in a similar manner to those they denounce, and claim that their ranting and raving is proper...because they are simply being logical?

Do you read what they write, and think to yourself, "They are dispassionate, they don't have an emotional investment, they don't succumb to name calling, they always stay detached and purely intellectual, devoid of any emotionalism whatsoever."

When Hitchens was quoted as admitting to atheistic belief...then what is the problem with admitting to atheistic belief?

So, atheists think their belief system is better than theistic belief systems...so? There is no proof on either side that meets any test that is objective and devoid of the human experience...so, why do the self proclaimed "reasonable" folks end up acting just like the people they claim to be "reasonably" superior to?

They are entitled to their opinions, right? Sure thing, and they are entitled to be emotional about them, and they are entitled to lie about the degree of emotionalism they embody, and I am free to point out the logical inconsistency between their rap and their real world act...right?

But truly...are their opinions (the ET vocal atheists) expressed in a manner that is devoid of emotional investment?

Have you watched any of Hitchens debates or comments where he is proffering up his opinion on theism?

He hardly comes across as some detached academic intellectual...his bitterness, and rage are palpable.

Maybe his rage and bitterness is right, and or deserved...I can't say...but that there is rage and bitterness, and lots of emotionalism is undeniable.
More...

You said true agnosticism rarely exists. I take it you were referring to the existence of agnosticism on internet forums that discuss religion and not the real world? In the real world there are many moderates and the existence of god and religion is a very gray and abstract area which creates a rather agnostic belief system.

I do agree that a large percentage of outspoken atheists are emotional and divisive. However, I find it a bit odd that you only point out the divisive atheists and not the divisive theists. Clearly both groups have these types of people.
 
Yes, I believe true agnosticism rarely exists.

Why?

Most people, in fact it is pretty rare to find a person, who will admit to ignorance on their part.

Agnosticism is ignorance, for you certainly could not say that agnosticism has its foundation in knowledge.

Those who are wise enough, again that is a rarity, to have deeply analyzed all the facts to come to a definite conclusion that they can't reach a conclusion are but a minority in the collective societies of the world.

Rare is it for someone to be able to suspend belief.

Take a practical example. Say you are driving on the freeway at high speeds. Do you know if in the very next moment that the following might happen:

A. That a semi truck in the next lane won't turn into your vehicle.
B. That your tire may have a blowout.
C. That you might have an involuntary neurological episode where you lose control of the vehicle.

No, you don't know, yet all three above are possibilities. We drive on the freeway without giving it much thought, but in reality our life is in serious risk at any moment.

So do we suspend belief that an accident could occur? No, what we practice is known as functional denial. It is a psychological term that has to do with the way in which we as human beings are able to move from the present moment into the next moment, the next uncertain and possibly painful moment, without experiencing the type of lizard brain response of the primitive instinctual nature of human beings.

Does this mean that because someone decided "not to think about it" that they are agnostic?

I don't believe so. I don't believe they are truly agnostic. Lazy is more like it, or unwilling to live in a condition in which they consciously don't know the answer to what may be the most important question...or practically speaking are just in functional denial about the question.

"However, I find it a bit odd that you only point out the divisive atheists and not the theists."

I think you will find that I repeatedly illustrate jem's irrationality when it comes to his outspoken theism. Not that he is wrong in his theism, I'm in no position to say.

He is emotional about it.

I also take the side of separation of Church and state, with a strong wall between the two, in order to protect the two.

I oppose teaching unprovable theories of evolution, and oppose teaching creationism both in publicly funded schools.

I believe for our society to exist, there needs to be a compromise from both the theists and the atheist, where reason in matters where reason can actually be applied, i.e. secular matters, to err on the side of reason and practicality (because I believe the truly reasonable and truly spiritual person will reach the same reasonable conclusions), and simultaneously protect everyone's right to practice their own personal beliefs, congregate with others of like beliefs, and do so as long as they do not use the political process to force their beliefs on others.

Quote from NeoRio1:

You said true agnosticism rarely exists. I take it you were referring to the existence of agnosticism on internet forums that discuss religion and not the real world? In the real world there are many moderates and the existence of god and religion is a very gray and abstract area which creates a rather agnostic belief system.

I do agree that a large percentage of outspoken atheists are emotional and divisive. However, I find it a bit odd that you only point out the divisive atheists and not the theists. Clearly both groups have these types of people.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Yes, I believe true agnosticism rarely exists.

Why?

Most people, in fact it is pretty rare to find a person, who will admit to ignorance on their part.

Agnosticism is ignorance, for you certainly could not say that agnosticism has its foundation in knowledge.

Those who are wise enough, again that is a rarity, to have deeply analyzed all the facts to come to a definite conclusion that they can't reach a conclusion are but a minority in the collective societies of the world.

Rare is it for someone to be able to suspend belief.

Take a practical example. Say you are driving on the freeway at high speeds. Do you know if in the very next moment that the following might happen:

A. That a semi truck in the next lane won't turn into your vehicle.
B. That your tire may have a blowout.
C. That you might have an involuntary neurological episode where you lose control of the vehicle.

No, you don't know, yet all three above are possibilities. We drive on the freeway without giving it much thought, but in reality our life is in serious risk at any moment.

So do we suspend belief that an accident could occur? No, what we practice is known as functional denial. It is a psychological term that has to do with the way in which we as human beings are able to move from the present moment into the next moment, the next uncertain and possibly painful moment, without experiencing the type of lizard brain response of the primitive instinctual nature of human beings.

Does this mean that because someone decided "not to think about it" that they are agnostic?

I don't believe so. I don't believe they are truly agnostic. Lazy is more like it, or unwilling to live in a condition in which they consciously don't know the answer to what may be the most important question...or practically speaking are just in functional denial about the question.

"However, I find it a bit odd that you only point out the divisive atheists and not the theists."

I think you will find that I repeatedly illustrate jem's irrationality when it comes to his outspoken theism. Not that he is wrong in his theism, I'm in no position to say.

He is emotional about it.

I also take the side of separation of Church and state, with a strong wall between the two, in order to protect the two.

I oppose teaching unprovable theories of evolution, and oppose teaching creationism both in publicly funded schools.

I believe for our society to exist, there needs to be a compromise from both the theists and the atheist, where reason in matters where reason can actually be applied, i.e. secular matters, to err on the side of reason and practicality (because I believe the truly reasonable and truly spiritual person will reach the same reasonable conclusions), and simultaneously protect everyone's right to practice their own personal beliefs, congregate with others of like beliefs, and do so as long as they do not use the political process to force their beliefs on others.
More...

Haven't you ever run into agnostics before in real life? I would say I have met more theists and atheists but I would certainly not classify the agnostics as rare. I have met many people who say that they don't know the truth about the existence of god. I bet if you bothered a moderate theist or atheist long enough about the real truth of god they would admit they aren't completely certain.
 
I have rarely met what I consider a true agnostic.

Say someone asked Gomer Pyle if he was a theist or an atheist, and he said, "Neither" would you consider Gomer to be a true agnostic?

"I bet if you bothered a moderate theist or atheist long enough about the real truth of god they would admit they aren't completely certain."

Ahhh, but the true agnostic is fully certain that they cannot possibly be certain as to the existence on non existence of God.

I doubt the garden variety of agnostics you are referring to have put enough thought into the situation, have studied deeply into the philosophy and logic of true agnosticism, to be able to hold the title of "true agnostic."

Experts in respective fields are quite rare...most of us are not experts, we just follow the respective crowd or are lazy.

When I question someone who claims to be agnostic, it generally only takes a few questions to uncover the source of their so called agnosticism.

Ambivalence or a lack of thought is not to be equated with agnosticism, true agnosticism. True agnosticism is achieved through hard work, not laziness.

Most so called agnostics are just ambivalent, meaning they are not clear, they are mixed up, they are not definite...true agnostics are quite clear in their decision to actively and consciously suspend belief in something they have a clear conceptual understanding of.

I know, the resident atheists pretend to have no concept of God, but it is a lie they are telling. They have a concept of God that they have rejected, just like theists have a concept of God that they have accepted...but both sides have a clear concept.

The true agnostic also has a very clear and definite concept of God, i.e. that their concept of God, not arrived at via laziness or ambivalence, but arrived at through hard work is a concept that God is beyond conception.


Quote from NeoRio1:

Haven't you ever run into agnostics before in real life? I would say I have met more theists and atheists but I would certainly not classify the agnostics as rare. I have met many people who say that they don't know the truth about the existence of god. I bet if you bothered a moderate theist or atheist long enough about the real truth of god they would admit they aren't completely certain.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I have rarely met what I consider a true agnostic.

Say someone asked Gomer Pyle if he was a theist or an atheist, and he said, "Neither" would you consider Gomer to be a true agnostic?

"I bet if you bothered a moderate theist or atheist long enough about the real truth of god they would admit they aren't completely certain."

Ahhh, but the true agnostic is fully certain that they cannot possibly be certain as to the existence on non existence of God.

I doubt the garden variety of agnostics you are referring to have put enough thought into the situation, have studied deeply into the philosophy and logic of true agnosticism, to be able to hold the title of "true agnostic."

Experts in respective fields are quite rare...most of us are not experts, we just follow the respective crowd or are lazy.

When I question someone who claims to be agnostic, it generally only takes a few questions to uncover the source of their so called agnosticism.

Ambivalence or a lack of thought is not to be equated with agnosticism, true agnosticism. True agnosticism is achieved through hard work, not laziness.

Most so called agnostics are just ambivalent, meaning they are not clear, they are mixed up, they are not definite...true agnostics are quite clear in their decision to actively and consciously suspend belief in something they have a clear conceptual understanding of.

I know, the resident atheists pretend to have no concept of God, but it is a lie they are telling. They have a concept of God that they have rejected, just like theists have a concept of God that they have accepted...but both sides have a clear concept.

The true agnostic also has a very clear and definite concept of God, i.e. that their concept of God, not arrived at via laziness or ambivalence, but arrived at through hard work is a concept that God is beyond conception.
More...

Describe all of this hard work one has to do in order to become truly agnostic. I think if someone analyzes all of the arguments for and against the existence of god, realizes there is no factual proof in the favor of either side and comes to the conclusion that they don't know whether god exists then they are truly agnostic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top