Richard Dawkins vs Christopher Hitchens

  • 122 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for frozen
frozen

40350

Forum Posts

258

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 14

frozen  Moderator

Poll Richard Dawkins vs Christopher Hitchens (20 votes)

Richard Dawkins 45%
Christopher Hitchens 55%

Who is better?

Vs

 • 
Avatar image for kingvenus
KingVenus

7522

Forum Posts

-100

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

iggy azalea.

Avatar image for frozen
frozen

40350

Forum Posts

258

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 14

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Why not both?

Avatar image for lvenger
Lvenger

36475

Forum Posts

899

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 50

User Lists: 18

#4  Edited By Lvenger

I'm more familiar with Dawkins and his systematic break downs of the problems and gaping flaws in religion and superstition. But Hitchens' arguments are so delightfully composed with eclectic dialogue and razor sharp arguments to puncture through his opponents' defenses. It's way too tough to choose but I do have to go with Dawkins on principle and my own subjective experiences.

Avatar image for jugjugbanks
JugJugBanks

1649

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hitchens. He knew women like Holly Willoughby and Katherine Parkinson and Camille Paglia. And realized that half of the lure/allure of religion was charm and self-gratification, so if one was anti-theist, they needed to put on a show. He respected the Psyche as well as the Science.

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
Jonny_Anonymous

45773

Forum Posts

11109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 32

Avatar image for rogueshadow
rogueshadow

30017

Forum Posts

237

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 rogueshadow  Moderator

Dawkins for me, I'm much more familiar with him and his work. TSG, TEP and TGD are some of my favourites.

Avatar image for jugjugbanks
JugJugBanks

1649

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By JugJugBanks

Uh, no. The science of extrania predates Mr. Dawkins' work. Anthropologists studying what affected the choice of mates, therefore biological development, is "well before" Dawkin's. H"e was good at "publish or perish" and came up with a clever buzz-word, but saying he invented the science of analyzing how one tribe valued a certain set of beads as more valuable in Neolthic Culture, and how this could very much influence who mated with whom, and how this could affect the futire and PHYSICAL ASPECTS of tribe members centuries later, is inaccurate.

Avatar image for jonny_anonymous
Jonny_Anonymous

45773

Forum Posts

11109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 32

Avatar image for mortein
Mortein

8328

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Mortein

I like them both, but I honestly never really understood the hype surrounding them.

I really liked Richard's biology books, so I'll pick him.

Avatar image for cable_extreme
Cable_Extreme

17190

Forum Posts

324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By Cable_Extreme

Hitchens no doubt, his "in your face" persona along with his witty yet dangerously brilliant responses/breakdowns place him highly in my book.

~RIP

Avatar image for africanwilds
AfricanWilds

762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250033

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Christopher Hitchens over Richard Dawkins... Hitchens seemed more confrontational than Dawkins... which always provides for more entertaining debates and conversation. Both of them are usually on point with their arguments.

Avatar image for rev_sulphur
rev_sulphur

2044

Forum Posts

10590

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250033

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for hayden86
Hayden86

1620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Both are great!

Rip hitch

Avatar image for rev_sulphur
rev_sulphur

2044

Forum Posts

10590

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

Avatar image for comicace3
comicace3

12438

Forum Posts

1465

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Hitchens

Avatar image for bluejay4
Bluejay4

4037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Mr. Dawkins is much more charming and I tend to agree with a lot of things he says, so I'll choose him.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hitchens, he was always clever.

Avatar image for the_stegman
the_stegman

41911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#21 the_stegman  Moderator

DeGrasse Tyson.

Avatar image for africanwilds
AfricanWilds

762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By AfricanWilds

Atheists are such men of faith.

It takes way more faith to be an atheist than it does to be theist, considering all of the signs that a divine power had to have orchestrated our creation.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Both are/were good.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By dshipp17

@africanwilds said:

Atheists are such men of faith.

It takes way more faith to be an atheist than it does to be deist, considering all of the signs that a divine power had to have orchestrated our creation.

I agree with this post; to me, it takes way more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God; because there are some atheists who are far more open minded, I'd have to go with neither; as the above poster said, I think someone like Bill Nye or DeGrasse Tyson are atheists with better characters. I like Bill Nye even more; I believe that Bill Nye is honestly open to changing his mind with the right type of evidence in his eyes; although there is a lot of evidence that he has to ignore, I think he's really convinced by things like the accepted dating method and dinosaur fossils, as starting points; DeGrasse Tyson seems to have been convinced by the god of the gaps argument; however, I plan to work on a scientific paper that I think will open up minds like Bill Nye and DeGrasse Tyson to giving God consideration; it has to do with how we interpret the Big Bang Theory and how we perceive the distance that light travels through the universe; it's all based on how we interpret the statement, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. However, I see people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable; I'm convinced of this, because I've seen how Richard Dawkins debated Christian scientists versus how Bill Nye debated Ken Ham; Bill Nye was giving Ken Ham repeated subtle hints about his concerns with believing in God, where Ken Ham was not open to answering Bill Nye's concerns more than he was there to win the debate.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Atheists are such men of faith.

It takes way more faith to be an atheist than it does to be deist, considering all of the signs that a divine power had to have orchestrated our creation.

Not playing sports requires more athletic ability than playing football.

Avatar image for africanwilds
AfricanWilds

762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By AfricanWilds

@mr_clockwork91 said:

@africanwilds said:

Atheists are such men of faith.

It takes way more faith to be an atheist than it does to be deist, considering all of the signs that a divine power had to have orchestrated our creation.

Not playing sports requires more athletic ability than playing football.

?...Failed analogy, my friend.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@africanwilds: No. Atheists aren't the ones making a knowledge claim about the existence of a God.

How do you know that a God created this universe or our existence for that matter?

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@africanwilds: Also your statement makes no sense definitional wise. How does disbelief require more faith? It's exactly the same as saying it takes more faith to not believe in the tooth fairy than it does to believe in it. Like saying 0 is more than 1.

Avatar image for africanwilds
AfricanWilds

762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By AfricanWilds

@africanwilds: No. Atheists aren't the ones making a knowledge claim about the existence of a God.

And? They are making a claim about the nonexistence of a God. They are basically acknowledging it either way.

How do you know that a God created this universe or our existence for that matter?

Well, for starters, the flawless design of the delicate universe:

"If the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules."

Avatar image for africanwilds
AfricanWilds

762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@africanwilds: Also your statement makes no sense definitional wise. How does disbelief require more faith? It's exactly the same as saying it takes more faith to not believe in the tooth fairy than it does to believe in it. Like saying 0 is more than 1.

Again, a flawed, unrelatable analogy. I don't have near the evidence that the tooth fairy exists than that of a divine power that created life itself.

If I disbelieve the theory that bombs didn't go off in the twin towers before the planes hit them, then I must have faith that my government wouldn't resort to such atrocities just to start a war.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91 said:

@africanwilds: No. Atheists aren't the ones making a knowledge claim about the existence of a God.

And? They are making a claim about the nonexistence of a God. They are basically acknowledging it either way.

Wrong. Atheists don't make a claim about there not being a God. We claim either we accept your claim of your god or reject it. It is the lack of belief. Why you can still be agnostic and an atheist. I don't know if for sure there is a god or not but I reject your claim of your God.

@mr_clockwork91 said:

How do you know that a God created this universe or our existence for that matter?

Well, for starters, the flawless design of the delicate universe:

"If the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules."

What do you mean by flawless? The elements in our atmosphere would support different life forms. The argument also seems to call into question the omnipotence of the creator. If he were infinitely powerful, why did he make life constrained to survive only in a tiny fraction of the universe? The case for supernatural intervention would be much more plausible if humans found themselves floating in the vacuum of space, on a toxic planet with no oxygen, or somewhere else where our continued survival was a complete mystery to scientists. As it is, we find life only in areas where the facts of biology tell us it can exist. This is exactly what we would expect if we were not the products of omnipotence.

Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons or other particles equal or greater than that of a proton. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91 said:

@africanwilds: Also your statement makes no sense definitional wise. How does disbelief require more faith? It's exactly the same as saying it takes more faith to not believe in the tooth fairy than it does to believe in it. Like saying 0 is more than 1.

Again, a flawed, unrelatable analogy. I don't have near the evidence that the tooth fairy exists than that of a divine power that created life itself.

No it's not, not believing in the tooth fairy is not an act of faith, because those who are making the claim have the burden of proof. Extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If I disbelieve the theory that bombs didn't go off in the twin towers before the planes hit them, then I must have faith that my government wouldn't resort to such atrocities just to start a war.

This is a failed analogy, we have evidence to show that it was terrorists that hijacked the plane. And just because you disbelieve in the theory does not mean you have to have faith in the government that would resort to such atrocities.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Atheists are such men of faith.

It takes way more faith to be an atheist than it does to be deist, considering all of the signs that a divine power had to have orchestrated our creation.

So it takes more faith to not have faith than to have faith?

Wow, logic fail of the week goes to you dude.

Avatar image for africanwilds
AfricanWilds

762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

What do you mean by flawless? The elements in our atmosphere would support different life forms.

?? Never once did I question what kind of lifeforms Earth can/can't support. I was referring to the incredibly perfect distance the Earth is positioned in relation to the Sun (and the moon). If it were even a fraction closer or farther away, it would burn up or freeze over and be uninhabitable for ANY life. If you call this a coincidence, I would have to ask you, with doubtful expectations, to explain your reasoning.

The argument also seems to call into question the omnipotence of the creator. If he were infinitely powerful, why did he make life constrained to survive only in a tiny fraction of the universe?

1. Why do you think the universe isn't a fraction compared to the multiverse/omniverse?

2. How am I supposed to know why an infinitely powerful and omnipotent being made the decision to put life only on one planet in the Milky Way? I didn't design it. So are you assuming that if one is supremely powerful and omnipotent, the designation of life to just one planet per galaxy is uncharacteristic and unlikely for someone of that position/power? Based on what criteria? I mean, by all means, you have every right to to assume such things.

The case for supernatural intervention would be much more plausible if humans found themselves floating in the vacuum of space, on a toxic planet with no oxygen, or somewhere else where our continued survival was a complete mystery to scientists. As it is, we find life only in areas where the facts of biology tell us it can exist. This is exactly what we would expect if we were not the products of omnipotence.

I don't exactly understand these hypothetical suggestions...because they all require the humans to be dead. Plausible based on what? I ask you, where did the humans come from? As a matter of fact, the universe had to have started from something. If the universe was conceived from a bang of an explosion of light and matter, what initiated that? This question is one that scientists have never answered.

Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons or other particles equal or greater than that of a proton. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.

I meant the Earth/Sun/Moon portion of the universe. Perhaps I didn't specify correctly. I do believe that this part of the universe is catered to supporting life.

Also, you bring the laws of the universe. Tell me, indeed, why is our universe so orderly and reliable? How/why did it inherit laws of nature that never change? There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence. "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle".

Avatar image for superdrummer
SuperDrummer

1909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hitchens is seriously my hero. Dawkins is great, but imo is outclassed.

Avatar image for willpayton
willpayton

22502

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So much sheer ignorance and lack of intelligence in this thread. It saddens me.

Avatar image for foolsgold
FoolsGold

961

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Haven't heard of the second guy. Dawkins is cool though.

Avatar image for hayden86
Hayden86

1620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@foolsgold: really ? Both ran in the same social and media, blah blah blah circles.

Avatar image for africanwilds
AfricanWilds

762

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By AfricanWilds

@mr_clockwork91 said:

Again, a flawed, unrelatable analogy. I don't have near the evidence that the tooth fairy exists than that of a divine power that created life itself.

No it's not, not believing in the tooth fairy is not an act of faith, because those who are making the claim have the burden of proof. Extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The "proof" of those that believe in the tooth fairy (toddlers and young children) is the tooth/money exchange system that occurs at night that their parents promised them would happen while they're sleeping. This establishes their faith in the tooth fairy - their parent's word and the evidence in the morning. Obviously, their "proof" is deluded and ultimately false, because they are impressionable kids, as it is just a harmless, traditional occasion of childhood. But it is, nonetheless, proof for them until they become older and know better. For now, sticking their tooth under their pillow and counting on it being replaced with money is an act of their faith in the tooth fairy.

This has no correlation with theism. I have already given a few proofs of how a divine power must have intervened in creating the universe. None of those involved influencing impressionable children, as mine were based of pure observation and fact.

@mr_clockwork91 said:

If I disbelieve the theory that bombs didn't go off in the twin towers before the planes hit them, then I must have faith that my government wouldn't resort to such atrocities just to start a war.

This is a failed analogy, we have evidence to show that it was terrorists that hijacked the plane.

No we don't. What evidence? Those terrorists are gone. How will we ever know whether or not they were influenced/given incentive by the American gov't? Are you under the impression that the gov't could never be elaborate enough to cover up all evidence to such a strategic plan?

By the way, I personally do not believe in said conspiracy theory, but it is worth noting in the spirit of objectivity.

@mr_clockwork91 said:

And just because you disbelieve in the theory does not mean you have to have faith in the government that would resort to such atrocities.

The faith in the gov't does indeed influence my disbelief in this particular situation.

Avatar image for mandarinestro
Mandarinestro

7651

Forum Posts

4902

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Lol, I imagine a Christian would post a popcorn gif.

Avatar image for johnfrank120
johnfrank120

6702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for nick_hero22
nick_hero22

8769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Both are intellectual lightweights in regards to defending Naturalism/Atheism, but Richard Dawkins is much better than Christopher Hitchens. I have a hard time seeing his appeal or intellectual rigor after he was thoroughly spanked by William Lane Craig in their debate. The best popular defender of Naturalism/Atheism in my opinion is Sean Carroll.

Avatar image for lvenger
Lvenger

36475

Forum Posts

899

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 50

User Lists: 18

Both are intellectual lightweights in regards to defending Naturalism/Atheism, but Richard Dawkins is much better than Christopher Hitchens. I have a hard time seeing his appeal or intellectual rigor after he was thoroughly spanked by William Lane Craig in their debate. The best popular defender of Naturalism/Atheism in my opinion is Sean Carroll.

What are you talking about? William Lane Craig is incapable of spanking a naughty child when he defends trite rubbish like God's destruction of the Caanaanites. Let alone two of the best defenders for secularism in the 20th and 21st Century. William Lane Craig is a shoddy and laughable excuse of a philosopher and is not even accepted amongst most philosophical circles due to the views and positions he holds. I've studied some of Craig's arguments in Religious Studies and Philosophy A Levels and they're a disgrace to decent philosophy.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91 said:

What do you mean by flawless? The elements in our atmosphere would support different life forms.

?? Never once did I question what kind of lifeforms Earth can/can't support. I was referring to the incredibly perfect distance the Earth is positioned in relation to the Sun (and the moon). If it were even a fraction closer or farther away, it would burn up or freeze over and be uninhabitable for ANY life. If you call this a coincidence, I would have to ask you, with doubtful expectations, to explain your reasoning.

Actually it's been proven that the earth does not need to be where it's at in order to thrive. I think this is called the goldilocks scale or something.

@mr_clockwork91 said:

The argument also seems to call into question the omnipotence of the creator. If he were infinitely powerful, why did he make life constrained to survive only in a tiny fraction of the universe?

1. Why do you think the universe isn't a fraction compared to the multiverse/omniverse?

I never said that, I said why would life be constrained to such a small part of this universe.

2. How am I supposed to know why an infinitely powerful and omnipotent being made the decision to put life only on one planet in the Milky Way? I didn't design it. So are you assuming that if one is supremely powerful and omnipotent, the designation of life to just one planet per galaxy is uncharacteristic and unlikely for someone of that position/power? Based on what criteria? I mean, by all means, you have every right to to assume such things.

I don't know, but why make assertions that a god did make our universe, answering a mystery with another mystery is intellectually dishonest.

@mr_clockwork91 said:

The case for supernatural intervention would be much more plausible if humans found themselves floating in the vacuum of space, on a toxic planet with no oxygen, or somewhere else where our continued survival was a complete mystery to scientists. As it is, we find life only in areas where the facts of biology tell us it can exist. This is exactly what we would expect if we were not the products of omnipotence.

I don't exactly understand these hypothetical suggestions...because they all require the humans to be dead. Plausible based on what? I ask you, where did the humans come from? As a matter of fact, the universe had to have started from something. If the universe was conceived from a bang of an explosion of light and matter, what initiated that? This question is one that scientists have never answered.

I don't know, but the universe started from the Big Bang.

@mr_clockwork91 said:

Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons or other particles equal or greater than that of a proton. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.

I meant the Earth/Sun/Moon portion of the universe. Perhaps I didn't specify correctly. I do believe that this part of the universe is catered to supporting life.

Also, you bring the laws of the universe. Tell me, indeed, why is our universe so orderly and reliable? How/why did it inherit laws of nature that never change? There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence. "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle".

  1. The laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, and were the same throughout the history of the universe.
  2. On a sufficiently large scale, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

The first assumption is straightforward, because a.) There is no evidence to the contrary and b.) Without it you might as well give up on doing any astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology at all, since if physical laws in the Andromeda galaxy are somehow different from where we live, but the differences are so subtle that we can't detect any from where we are -- well, it's pretty hard to go there and measure them. This assumption is necessary because when talking about how things interact on galactic, much less universal, scales, we need to use general relativity. It's much better if general relativity applies to other galaxies in the same way that it applies to ours.

The second assumption is known as the cosmological principle which has strong empirical support.
Avatar image for nick_hero22
nick_hero22

8769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lvenger said:

@nick_hero22 said:

Both are intellectual lightweights in regards to defending Naturalism/Atheism, but Richard Dawkins is much better than Christopher Hitchens. I have a hard time seeing his appeal or intellectual rigor after he was thoroughly spanked by William Lane Craig in their debate. The best popular defender of Naturalism/Atheism in my opinion is Sean Carroll.

What are you talking about? William Lane Craig is incapable of spanking a naughty child when he defends trite rubbish like God's destruction of the Caanaanites. Let alone two of the best defenders for secularism in the 20th and 21st Century. William Lane Craig is a shoddy and laughable excuse of a philosopher and is not even accepted amongst most philosophical circles due to the views and positions he holds. I've studied some of Craig's arguments in Religious Studies and Philosophy A Levels and they're a disgrace to decent philosophy.

Regardless, if the arguments are bad, Christopher Hitchens wasn't able to expose or communicate those flaws or provide any substantive arguments from atheism, so he lost the debate. There are much better debaters for atheism than either Christopher or Richard, even Atheist philosophers have distanced themselves from the New Atheist crowd and ridiculed both Christopher and Richard for their non-existent intellectual rigor. I don't like William Lane Craig and I think he is wrong, but many well known philosophers take him serious like Quentin Smith, J.L. Mackie, and Graham Oppy have applauded him for his intellectual rigor despite them believing that he is wrong. William Lane Craig was even the president of the Philosophy of Time Society and a member of the American Philosophical Association.

Avatar image for lvenger
Lvenger

36475

Forum Posts

899

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 50

User Lists: 18

Regardless, if the arguments are bad, Christopher Hitchens wasn't able to expose or communicate those flaws or provide any substantive arguments from atheism, so he lost the debate. There are much better debaters for atheism than either Christopher or Richard, even Atheist philosophers have distanced themselves from the New Atheist crowd and ridiculed both Christopher and Richard for their non-existent intellectual rigor. I don't like William Lane Craig and I think he is wrong, but many well known philosophers take him serious like Quentin Smith, J.L. Mackie, and Graham Oppy have applauded him for his intellectual rigor despite them believing that he is wrong. William Lane Craig was even the president of the Philosophy of Time Society and a member of the American Philosophical Association.

I really don't see how Hitchens lost the debate when he held the edge the entire time and almost didn't go all out the way he usually does on religious crackpots. Craig is well known for dodging pertinent questions, hiding behind doggedly false truths and presenting shamefully concocted premises resulting in a skewed depiction of a philosophical argument. He may have conceded but it felt like he was just done with Craig's BS, for which I can't honestly blame him. Craig is a terrible person to debate against by any standards.

As for better atheist debaters, I know of a few who might be better but Dawkins and Hitchens still deserve to be held in high regard up there with them for not only being rigorous in their intellectual and empirical standards but for bringing these issues to the public eye too. Their debating tactics have been a big influence on me and their style of presentation has been adapted into my own so they're probably to owe for the reason why I'm considered one of the best debaters on here for comic book battles and other topics too. And they've influenced plenty of others too.

I can't speak for Quentin Smith or Graham Oppy but I was taught philosophy by JL Mackie's son and I can assure you that JL Mackie did not take Lane Craig seriously at all. Mackie was far more influenced by Dawkins' work on The Selfish Gene than he was by Craig's ridiculous excuse for philosophy. And likewise, several sources point to Craig not being accepted in philosophical circles either.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/larry-moran-asks-do-philosophers-take-william-lane-craigs-arguments-seriously/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/05/an-index-of-why-william-lane-craig-is-a-dishonest-genocide-defending-creepy-homophobe/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Avatar image for frozen
frozen

40350

Forum Posts

258

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 14

#48  Edited By frozen  Moderator

@lvenger: I agree, I also recommend Hitchens debate with Tony Blair, but watch these epic Hitchslap momments. Hitchens like Dawkins, has NEVER lost a debate.

Intellectually dominates and Hitchslaps Hannity.

Loading Video...

Owned again.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91 said:

Again, a flawed, unrelatable analogy. I don't have near the evidence that the tooth fairy exists than that of a divine power that created life itself.

No it's not, not believing in the tooth fairy is not an act of faith, because those who are making the claim have the burden of proof. Extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The "proof" of those that believe in the tooth fairy (toddlers and young children) is the tooth/money exchange system that occurs at night that their parents promised them would happen while they're sleeping. This establishes their faith in the tooth fairy - their parent's word and the evidence in the morning. Obviously, their "proof" is deluded and ultimately false, because they are impressionable kids, as it is just a harmless, traditional occasion of childhood. But it is, nonetheless, proof for them until they become older and know better. For now, sticking their tooth under their pillow and counting on it being replaced with money is an act of their faith in the tooth fairy.

This has no correlation with theism. I have already given a few proofs of how a divine power must have intervened in creating the universe. None of those involved influencing impressionable children, as mine were based of pure observation and fact.

You haven't given any proofs, all you've stated is that if the earth is in different position than it were now, life would not happen. Which has been proven false by the goldilocks zone. Then you say the odds of a protein molecule is unlikely. Firstly, you do not use probability on past events, as this doesn't work. Also, these bogus calculations miss the fact that the arrangement of atoms in a molecular structure is not governed by chance, but by chemistry, which is not random. (For example, there are elements in the periodic table that are more or less likely to form chemical bonds. Extreme examples of this include the highly reactive alkali metals (sodium, potassium, lithium, etc.), which are never found in elemental forms in nature, and the noble gases (xenon, radon, argon, etc.) which rarely form chemical compounds.

But I will grant you all those things, that does still not prove a divine creator. You are arguing from incredulity by saying that I don't believe that these things could just happen, therefore god. Logicing your god into existence without any confirming evidence is inappropriate for establishing matters of fact.

@mr_clockwork91 said:

If I disbelieve the theory that bombs didn't go off in the twin towers before the planes hit them, then I must have faith that my government wouldn't resort to such atrocities just to start a war.

This is a failed analogy, we have evidence to show that it was terrorists that hijacked the plane.

No we don't. What evidence? Those terrorists are gone. How will we ever know whether or not they were influenced/given incentive by the American gov't? Are you under the impression that the gov't could never be elaborate enough to cover up all evidence to such a strategic plan?

By the way, I personally do not believe in said conspiracy theory, but it is worth noting in the spirit of objectivity.

What evidence? The videos of them at the airport, the confirmation of Al-Qaeda, the phone calls of the passengers.

No I am not under the assumption that the government could not elaborate such a scheme. But with the amount of evidence that is presented and validated, I have to make a pragmatic assertion that it was indeed the hijackers and not the government. You make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. Why don't you believe in the conspiracy?

And just because you disbelieve in the theory does not mean you have to have faith in the government that would resort to such atrocities.

The faith in the gov't does indeed influence my disbelief in this particular situation.