Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[Justanatheist]

Watch this and let us know what you think. Maybe you will change your mind about how well WLC has been rebutted.
Sean Carrol is a naturalist and a Cosmologist at CalTech.

You beat me to it, WLC completely out of his depth debating Carol

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually Hitchen does present an argument. His presentation of the Abrahamic God as being an invention is that his character reflect the Hebrew's geopolitical desires and customs, something that could represent evidence of a "fabricated" deity instead of a "discovered/revealed" one. Another use of this argument is linked to Epicurus problem of evil. In the Epicurian formulation, the last position that if God isn't able nor willing to prevent all evil, why call him God. This implies, at least to Epicurus that a being, even if powerful, cannot prevent all evil and isn't even willing to do so, should not be even considered one. Thus, it's actually two arguments.

Argument one: the Abrahamic God's character displays clear signs of fabrication for geopolitical purpose and is thus fictional.
Argument two: the Abrahamic God's character is so poor that even if he were an actual real being, he doesn't deserve the title of God in the least.

These are logical arguments.

Bingo.

 

[Justanatheist]

2. You presume that you can’t be engaging in wrong motivations or behavior if you claim to think God is imaginary.
But If the Bible is true then all people are born with an inate sense of right and wrong and inner awareness of God’s true existence. It also tells us that a rejection of truth is an act of conscious suppression on the part of the person who desires to reject God and embrace sin. Romans 1.
You cannot assume to be true that your rejection of the evidence for God is a neutral act with no deeper meaning.

How have you proved that all the other religious books and claims made by other religions are not true?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Watch his debate with William Lane Craig.

I actually hadn't been aware that Hitchens and Craig had a debate.

I'm a bit surprised, since - at least in recent years - Craig has refused to debate several prominent atheists with the excuse that he only debates people with terminal degrees in their field (i.e. PhDs, usually).

Hitchens' highest degree is a BA.

 

[Meow Mix]

It accurately describes the arguments of most atheists I have seen. Hitchens is the prime example. They spend most of the debate railing against the character of God rather than dealing with the raw evidence and logic.

That is significant and noteworthy because it shows that their objections to God aren’t rooted in logic or evidence, as they claim, but actually rooted in resentment. It is emotion masquerading under the pretense of logic.

This undermines the central claim of their entire belief system: the claim that they dont have sufficient evidence for belief in God. When, in fact, the raw evidence and logic points to theism over atheism, but they simply choose not to accept it.

Why they choose to reject that which is most likely true based on the evidence demands further explanation of what the real motivations are for their rejection of their creator.

Again, I find myself not objecting to your characterization of Hitchens.

However, you need to get out more (so the saying goes) if you think this is representative of philosophical atheism. I do note that you qualified this with "...of most atheists I have seen," so that's at least good.

Let's just not get this twisted: New Atheism is full of sophomoric "philosophy" and people stepping way outside their lane, but atheism in aggregate is not represented solely by New Atheism.

If you'd like to discuss one of Craig's arguments, I'd be happy to rebut one for you. No "watch this video" from my end, just arguments in my own words doing as you ask (dismantling the argument and reasoning, not taking potshots at God's character). With the caveat that if a given argument involves the PoE, God's character becomes mildly relevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think Hitchens thought he was arguing for atheism just by condemning the weaknesses in the conservative Abrahamic God of concepts of primarily the Old Testament. All that showed was issues with those concepts to me and that people a few millennia back did not have it all figured out yet.

Hitchens was never very important to me.

You realize that two thirds of the theists on Earth believe in that "conservative Abrahamic God," right?

 

[Rival]

I don't think Hitchens was that great and I tend to prefer his brother.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, I find myself not objecting to your characterization of Hitchens.

However, you need to get out more (so the saying goes) if you think this is representative of philosophical atheism. I do note that you qualified this with "...of most atheists I have seen," so that's at least good.

Let's just not get this twisted: New Atheism is full of sophomoric "philosophy" and people stepping way outside their lane, but atheism in aggregate is not represented solely by New Atheism.

If you'd like to discuss one of Craig's arguments, I'd be happy to rebut one for you. No "watch this video" from my end, just arguments in my own words doing as you ask (dismantling the argument and reasoning, not taking potshots at God's character). With the caveat that if a given argument involves the PoE, God's character becomes mildly relevant.

At the very least, I'd expect anyone complaining about "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" would check out all four "horsemen."

In all the railing about "the Four Horsemen" I've seen over the years, I've never seen any harsh words about Daniel Dennett.

Probably because the man is a frickin' treasure.

 

[Meow Mix]

At the very least, I'd expect anyone complaining about "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" would check out all four "horsemen."

In all the railing about "the Four Horsemen" I've seen over the years, I've never seen any harsh words about Daniel Dennett.

Probably because the man is a frickin' treasure.

I have no rebuttal. I like some of his thoughts on the mind and consciousness, emergence, etc.

He gets lumped in with a gross crowd though. Poor him, maybe I should make exceptions for him.

 

[Stevicus]

Watch his debate with William Lane Craig.

You’ll notice that throughout the entire debate he really doesn't even attempt to present a real logic argument of his own that God doesn’t exist. He also never even tries to dispute Craig’s logical arguments for why God does exist.

So what does Hitchens fill all his time doing? Trying to slander God’s character by calling God’s behavior bad or pointing to bad things and blaming God for it. It’s the logical fallacy equivalent of an ad hominem. That makes up basically the entirety of Hitchens time. Which logically has nothing to do with disproving God’s existence even if you assumed the slander were true.

I think the only reason he had gotten away with that for so long and gained admiration for it is because the eloquent manner in which he speaks makes him sound far smarter and more poignant than the logical substance of his argument actually is.

This exposes the root of what I have noticed with most militant atheists - their objection to God is not based on logic, but anger. Anger at God. They don’t want to believe He is real, not because the evidence is in their favor but because they don’t like Him or don’t like the implications of His reality being true.

Hitchens displays unbridled anger and resentment at God, but puts forth no logical arguments or counter arguments against the reality of His existence.

I remember him when he wrote for The Nation, and I agreed with many of his criticisms of the Reagan Administration at the time. He was definitely one of the good guys.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no rebuttal. I like some of his thoughts on the mind and consciousness, emergence, etc.

He gets lumped in with a gross crowd though. Poor him, maybe I should make exceptions for him.

Even Richard Dawkins wasn't that bad back in the day (e.g. when The God Delusion first came out). At the time, I remember thinking that for just about anything in that book, if you flipped it so that it was against a lack of faith insteads of against faith, you'd get something in line with a "moderate" Anglican sermon that would be criticized as being too boring if it was criticized at all.

IMO, a lot of the criticism of the God Delusion was from people who didn't like being on the receiving end of stuff that was much milder than what they dished out themselves.

But then Dawkins kinda jumped the shark with his cringey response to Elevatorgate, and then the whole "mild pedophilia" comment, and most recently going full-on anti-trans. He deserves plenty of criticism for all that, but in general, I think his commentaries on religion were reasonable.

 

[blü 2]

Watch his debate with William Lane Craig.

You’ll notice that throughout the entire debate he really doesn't even attempt to present a real logic argument of his own that God doesn’t exist. He also never even tries to dispute Craig’s logical arguments for why God does exist.

So what does Hitchens fill all his time doing? Trying to slander God’s character by calling God’s behavior bad or pointing to bad things and blaming God for it. It’s the logical fallacy equivalent of an ad hominem. That makes up basically the entirety of Hitchens time. Which logically has nothing to do with disproving God’s existence even if you assumed the slander were true.

I think the only reason he had gotten away with that for so long and gained admiration for it is because the eloquent manner in which he speaks makes him sound far smarter and more poignant than the logical substance of his argument actually is.

This exposes the root of what I have noticed with most militant atheists - their objection to God is not based on logic, but anger. Anger at God. They don’t want to believe He is real, not because the evidence is in their favor but because they don’t like Him or don’t like the implications of His reality being true.

Hitchens displays unbridled anger and resentment at God, but puts forth no logical arguments or counter arguments against the reality of His existence.

Wow.

Anyone who can't make mincemeat of Craig three times before breakfast should indeed find a new occupation.

 

[firedragon]

Watch his debate with William Lane Craig.

You’ll notice that throughout the entire debate he really doesn't even attempt to present a real logic argument of his own that God doesn’t exist. He also never even tries to dispute Craig’s logical arguments for why God does exist.

So what does Hitchens fill all his time doing? Trying to slander God’s character by calling God’s behavior bad or pointing to bad things and blaming God for it. It’s the logical fallacy equivalent of an ad hominem. That makes up basically the entirety of Hitchens time. Which logically has nothing to do with disproving God’s existence even if you assumed the slander were true.

I think the only reason he had gotten away with that for so long and gained admiration for it is because the eloquent manner in which he speaks makes him sound far smarter and more poignant than the logical substance of his argument actually is.

This exposes the root of what I have noticed with most militant atheists - their objection to God is not based on logic, but anger. Anger at God. They don’t want to believe He is real, not because the evidence is in their favor but because they don’t like Him or don’t like the implications of His reality being true.

Hitchens displays unbridled anger and resentment at God, but puts forth no logical arguments or counter arguments against the reality of His existence.

Hitchens had scripts that appeal to mythicists, cynics, atheists and agnostic audiences. He had nothing more. So obviously he doesnt have a chance in a philosophical discussion with someone like Craig. Hitchens can't even understand half of it. So you will definitely hear certain scripts being reported to make a bit of banter and snide remarks others may deem "wow".

 

[AlexanderG]

Spending all your time in a formal debate “driving home” things that aren’t relevant to the topic of the debate doesn’t make you great at anything.

In fact, it’s not difficult to “drive something home” when you are given no opposition to it. Craig ignores most of hitchens attempts to derail the debate because it is not material to the subject of the debate itself.

Hitchens was having a one sided argument with himself by trying to unsuccessfully bait Craig into letting the topic be changed.


There are two flaws with your statement:
1. Nobody is actually disproving Craigs theistic arguments. If you think they have you can post the debate where you think it happens.

2. Your claim about atheism is false. Anyone making a statement they claim is truth has the burden of proof to logically demonstrate why they think they can say it is true.

If you claim as a truth that God doesnt exist you have a burden of proof.
If you claim as a truth that atheism is a more probable or better way of explaining reality, then you also have a burden or proof.




You don’t see anyone debating Craig dismantling him with your argument. They dont even try because they know its not a logically valid pathway.

Its because you are operating from the false premise that you have no burden of proof. But they know better than to believe that. And Craig would no doubt shut them down easily if they tried it.




He does it in the exact debate I referenced.

You must be confusing the concept of “logical and valid argument” with “something that convinces me personally to change my mind”.

If Craigs core arguments were as you say, invalid and illogical, then it would be very easy for his opponents to refute them. But they aren't refuting it, and neither are you.

Instead of demonstrating why any of his arguments are either invalid or illogical, all you’ve done is tried to claim you have no need to do that because you falsely think you have no burden of proof.





It accurately describes the arguments of most atheists I have seen. Hitchens is the prime example. They spend most of the debate railing against the character of God rather than dealing with the raw evidence and logic.

That is significant and noteworthy because it shows that their objections to God aren’t rooted in logic or evidence, as they claim, but actually rooted in resentment. It is emotion masquerading under the pretense of logic.

This undermines the central claim of their entire belief system: the claim that they dont have sufficient evidence for belief in God. When, in fact, the raw evidence and logic points to theism over atheism, but they simply choose not to accept it.

Why they choose to reject that which is most likely true based on the evidence demands further explanation of what the real motivations are for their rejection of their creator.



I never claimed to know what you personally believe.

But you are also operating from some false premises and hidden presumptions that need to be pointed out:

1. You presume you know beyond any doubt what your real motives and feelings are. It’s entirely possible you aren’t aware or what really motivates you. People engage in self deception to affirm what they want to be true despite the evidence all the time. If you were motivated by anger at God, or a desire to sin, as your reason for rejecting truth, then it’s entirely possible you would hide that fact from yourself because to admit that to yourself would require admitting your rejection of God isn’t based on logic or evidence and therefore could be wrong.

2. You presume that you can’t be engaging in wrong motivations or behavior if you claim to think God is imaginary.
But If the Bible is true then all people are born with an inate sense of right and wrong and inner awareness of God’s true existence. It also tells us that a rejection of truth is an act of conscious suppression on the part of the person who desires to reject God and embrace sin. Romans 1.
You cannot assume to be true that your rejection of the evidence for God is a neutral act with no deeper meaning.

Thanks for the reply. It seems like you missed my main points, though.

1. Hitchens' argument that the Christian god depicted in the Bible is a moral monster is a good argument, because it indicates that the claim that this god is morally perfect appears to be impossible, and false. Indeed, I personally don't think I could conceive of a more evil god if I tried. Any human who did what god does in the bible would be reviled as the most infamous psychopath in human history. This is a very compelling argument against the claims of Christianity that their god is good and morally perfect. It is not a mere appeal to emotion. It is not showing we're secretly angry at a god we think is real. It is a clear demonstration of an apparent contradiction.

2. You seem to have a cloudy idea of what atheism is. Granted, in traditional academic philosophy, atheism is defined as "the position that no gods exist." Outside of that narrow niche, however, regular people who identify as atheists almost never claim, believe, or defend such a position.

My position as an atheist is that there are no good arguments or evidence to support theistic claims, and so I don't believe them. That's it. Notice I'm making no ontological claims about whether or not a god in fact exists, nor am I saying your claims are false. I'm saying your claims fail to demonstrate they are true, and I can explain why, and so I don't believe your god claims. My position can be immediately falsified with any valid and sound argument or good evidence for a god. As far as I can tell, in the entire history of humanity, no such arguments or evidence have been produced.

My only burden of proof is to explain why your arguments and evidence fail to warrant belief. And I've met that burden. I have no other burdens of proof I need to meet in order to sustain my position. I don't need to explain where the universe came from, or why there is something instead of nothing, or why we have moral intuitions. I only need to disbelieve your claims because they fail, and that makes me not a theist, i.e. an atheist. Do you understand this?

3. It's very curious to me that you think Craig has presented any argument for the existence of god that is valid and structure with sound premises. I completely disagree. If you want to present what you think is his best, clearest, well-evidenced argument, then I'd be happy to address it. Use a time stamp for a debate or just copy it out in a response, it's all good.

4. You said, "Why [atheists] choose to reject that which is most likely true based on the evidence demands further explanation of what the real motivations are for their rejection of their creator." This appears to be a defense mechanism on your part, if we're going to be psychologizing now. The possibility that evidence does not indicate any god is perhaps not an acceptable option for you under any circumstances, and so you have to find a separate reason we don't believe? We are here telling you, over and over, that the evidence does NOT indicate god's existence is most likely true. We're telling you why. There is no "further explanation" needed. We're telling you that we would freely change our mind and believe if we had sufficient evidence. I'm intellectually honest, and I'm using the same standard I use to believe everything else I think exists, and the evidence for god is not meeting that standard. Instead, it appears to fall in the poor evidentiary category of mythical creatures, UFOs, paranormal happenings, superstitious beliefs, and other imaginary things. And so I don't believe you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Watch his debate with William Lane Craig.

You’ll notice that throughout the entire debate he really doesn't even attempt to present a real logic argument of his own that God doesn’t exist. He also never even tries to dispute Craig’s logical arguments for why God does exist.

So what does Hitchens fill all his time doing? Trying to slander God’s character by calling God’s behavior bad or pointing to bad things and blaming God for it. It’s the logical fallacy equivalent of an ad hominem. That makes up basically the entirety of Hitchens time. Which logically has nothing to do with disproving God’s existence even if you assumed the slander were true.

I think the only reason he had gotten away with that for so long and gained admiration for it is because the eloquent manner in which he speaks makes him sound far smarter and more poignant than the logical substance of his argument actually is.

This exposes the root of what I have noticed with most militant atheists - their objection to God is not based on logic, but anger. Anger at God. They don’t want to believe He is real, not because the evidence is in their favor but because they don’t like Him or don’t like the implications of His reality being true.

Hitchens displays unbridled anger and resentment at God, but puts forth no logical arguments or counter arguments against the reality of His existence.

When Sean Hannity once said to him, "You seem to be angry with religion, angry with God. Am I wrong in my perception?"
Hitchens replied, "Not with God, that would be absurd."

By the way, Hitchens died in 2011.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Craig formed his arguments using sound logic and premises.

I actually have yet to see any atheist in a debate present any sound logical counter arguments to the core of what Craig argues on this topic.

No he didn't.
He simply inserts his personal God into the cosmological argument and calls it a day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hitchens had scripts that appeal to mythicists, cynics, atheists and agnostic audiences. He had nothing more. So obviously he doesnt have a chance in a philosophical discussion with someone like Craig. Hitchens can't even understand half of it. So you will definitely hear certain scripts being reported to make a bit of banter and snide remarks others may deem "wow".

Can't understand half of it?

Hitchens had a B.A. in philosophy and could cite philosophical works from memory.

 

[firedragon]

Can't understand half of it?

Hitchens had a B.A. in philosophy and could cite philosophical works from memory.

He cannot fathom half of it. He doesnt respond to most of it.

 

[F1fan]

At the very least, I'd expect anyone complaining about "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" would check out all four "horsemen."

In all the railing about "the Four Horsemen" I've seen over the years, I've never seen any harsh words about Daniel Dennett.

Probably because the man is a frickin' treasure.

There are things that bug me about each of the Four Horsemen in their style, manner, and approach, but that's why there is room for each of them. Religious claims have a huge range of what they assert. They claim emotional arguments, psychological, "scientific", tradition, cultural, etc. It takes a lot of work to listen and assess the variety of claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He cannot fathom half of it. He doesnt respond to most of it.

Nonsense. He was an extremely well read man.
Try reading some of his works sometime.