Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

[joe1776]

yes, and ... yes. But QM does have evidence.... an ever-growing body of evidence, in fact.. .

Yes, Bob. But it got that evidence only after being tested ...which means the hypothesis was accepted as having merit BEFORE the evidence for its validity became available.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So, you agree then that the Hitchens quote wouldn't apply to the situation I described therefore it doesn't always apply?

It does apply. It applies to the person making the assertion of guilt. That person must provide evidence to back their assertion of guilt or their assertion can be dismissed without evidence.

You're not suggesting that common sense has to be considered and one can't just lay out that Hitchen's quote as Gospel, are you?

Hitchens just happened to say something that is true in a way that is memorable, as he was known for doing. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive assertion. That's how logic and common sense works.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes, Bob. But it got that evidence only after being tested ...which means the hypothesis was accepted as having merit BEFORE the evidence for its validity became available.

Having merit is not the same thing as being accepted as provisionally true.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Nah. The fact that Hitchens quote would be absurd if applied to the defense, is evidence that the Hitchens quote doesn't always reasonably apply. There are exceptions. Many of them, in fact.

The defense isn't the one making the assertion. The prosecution is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

However, you are mistaken about QM. It was accepted as an hypothesis because it credibly explained observed effects but the evidence for its validity was acquired only after testing.

A hypothesis is a statement that may or may not be true. An assertion is a statement that is being asserted to be true (beyond a reasonable doubt). A hypothesis and an assertion are not the same thing.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If you follow Hitchens advice and dismiss on lack of evidence, why would you test the hypothesis?

Hitchens said to dismiss assertions of truth if they lack evidence. Hypotheses are not assertions of truth, they are ideas of what could be true which need further testing.

 

[joe1776]

Having merit is not the same thing as being accepted as provisionally true.

I've confused you. Let me try a different approach to make my point.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

Science would come to a stop if, following the Hitchens quote as law, hypotheses were dismissed for lack of evidence ....because hypotheses must be accepted as having merit and then tested before evidence of their validity is available.

 

[Willamena]

Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

Is there anything in Atheism except their assertions that is to be understood, please?

Regards

Yes. The world is to be understood.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

Is there anything in Atheism except their assertions that is to be understood, please?

Regards

Yes. The world is to be understood.

World is not in Atheism. Is it, please?
Regards

 

[Willamena]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

Is there anything in Atheism except their assertions that is to be understood, please?

Regards


World is not in Atheism. Is it, please?
Regards

The world is in everything that is about epistemology.

Epistemology means studying, looking at, or being the world from the perspective of a human mind. Atheism, like so many -isms, is an issue of epistemology (e.g. beliefs, knowledge, states of mind, opinions, behavior, etc).

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes, Bob. But it got that evidence only after being tested ...which means the hypothesis was accepted as having merit BEFORE the evidence for its validity became available.

Well, sure-- that's a hope/trust issue. Not faith. Moreover? By the time *of* the testing? They are generally on very solid theoretical ground, the hypothesis having passed muster from among a large body of peers.

Testing is so very expensive, that that is the least we could expect. We are long past the days where a single sailing vessel, with one clever individual, can discover ground-breaking theories.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I've confused you. Let me try a different approach to make my point.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

Science would come to a stop if, following the Hitchens quote as law, hypotheses were dismissed for lack of evidence ....because hypotheses must be accepted as having merit and then tested before evidence of their validity is available.

The operative term is "can be", not "must be". A skeptic can dismiss an assertion if there is a lack of evidence. That in no way is a commandment that these assertions must be dismissed. If a scientist thinks a hypothesis has merit and is worth testing then there is nothing in Hitchens' quote that commands him to not test the hypothesis.

 

[paarsurrey]

The operative term is "can be", not "must be". A skeptic can dismiss an assertion if there is a lack of evidence. That in no way is a commandment that these assertions must be dismissed. If a scientist thinks a hypothesis has merit and is worth testing then there is nothing in Hitchens' quote that commands him to not test the hypothesis.

It is not specific with a skeptic, a believer could dismiss an assertion of the Atheism people likewise that is without evidence. And it is so. Right, please?
Regards

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It is not specific with a skeptic, a believer could dismiss an assertion of the Atheism people likewise that is without evidence.

The skeptic's position doesn't require evidence, as already discussed. The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion that deities exist, not with the person who is skeptical of that claim.

 

[paarsurrey]

The skeptic's position doesn't require evidence, as already discussed. The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion that deities exist, not with the person who is skeptical of that claim.

That is only an assertion of the Atheism people without ever providing any evidences so it has been dismissed so often by the believers. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It is not specific with a skeptic, a believer could dismiss an assertion of the Atheism people likewise that is without evidence.

"I don't believe you" is not an assertion.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

That is only an assertion of the Atheism people without ever providing any evidences so it has been dismissed so often by the believers.

"I don't believe you" is not an assertion.

It is the theists who are making the assertion that God exists. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the theist, not with those who are skeptical of theist claims.

 

[paarsurrey]

"I don't believe you" is not an assertion.

It is the theists who are making the assertion that God exists. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the theist, not with those who are skeptical of theist claims.

I believe that "G-d exists", it is sufficient for me.
Regards

 

[joe1776]

The operative term is "can be", not "must be". A skeptic can dismiss an assertion if there is a lack of evidence. That in no way is a commandment that these assertions must be dismissed. If a scientist thinks a hypothesis has merit and is worth testing then there is nothing in Hitchens' quote that commands him to not test the hypothesis.

If Hitchens meant the dismissal as optional, as you now claim, then why do you, and others, offer this quote as though it offers justification for the dismissal of claims made without evidence of its validity? Are you wrong in using the Hitchens quote or is your recent interpretation of its meaning flawed?

 

[paarsurrey]

If Hitchens meant the dismissal as optional, as you now claim, then why do you, and others, offer this quote as though it offers justification for the dismissal of claims made without evidence of its validity? Are you wrong in using the Hitchens quote or is your recent interpretation of its meaning flawed?

Hitchens was just an ordinary human being as faulty as others or even more faulty than others. His quotes became popular with the Atheism people and the like as it suited them. I believe, it cuts at the roots of Atheism, never to grow again. Right, please?
Regards