Can explicit atheists ever really understand atheism?

[joe1776]

Hitchens was just an ordinary human beings 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

I'm sorry, my friend. I can't support your negative opinions on atheists or atheism.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

Then you don't need any evidence to believe that something exists. That's fine. However, other people require evidence, and it is up to the person who claims that something exists to present that evidence if they want to convince skeptics that the something exists.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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?

Because it is a valid justification for dismissing a claim. If there is no evidence to back an assertion then you are justified in dismissing a claim if you choose to.

Are you wrong in using the Hitchens quote or is your recent interpretation of its meaning flawed?

You keep trying to project your own interpretation of what Hitchens said. Perhaps you should read what he actually said and meant. Again, the operative term is "can be dismissed", not "must be dismissed". That means it is OPTIONAL. You are justified in rejecting a bare assertion IF YOU CHOOSE TO.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

You can throw out the Hitchens quote if you like. All Hitchens did was summarize the Burden of Proof fallacy in a catchy way. Logic requires that the person making the assertion that something exists be able to provide evidence that this something exists.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If you want to ignore logic, then that is on you.

 

[paarsurrey]

You can throw out the Hitchens quote if you like. All Hitchens did was summarize the Burden of Proof fallacy in a catchy way. Logic requires that the person making the assertion that something exists be able to provide evidence that this something exists.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If you want to ignore logic, then that is on you.

It has value in relation to Atheism so I won't throw it out.
I believe Hitchens was wrong on the issue of Burden of Proof. Any Atheism people who assert his stance on Atheism, the Burden of Proof of is on him, very certainly, else he should keep it with him and must not announce and demonstrate it. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I believe Hitchens was wrong on the issue of Burden of Proof. Any Atheism people who assert his stance on Atheism, the Burden of Proof of is on him, very certainly, else he should keep it with him and must not announce and demonstrate it. Right, please?

False. The burden of proof rests with the person who states that gods exist. That's how the burden of proof works. The person who claims that something exists has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the something exists. That is basic logic.

 

[joe1776]

Because it is a valid justification for dismissing a claim. If there is no evidence to back an assertion then you are justified in dismissing a claim if you choose to.

You keep trying to project your own interpretation of what Hitchens said. Perhaps you should read what he actually said and meant. Again, the operative term is "can be dismissed", not "must be dismissed". That means it is OPTIONAL. You are justified in rejecting a bare assertion IF YOU CHOOSE TO.

You repeated what I understood perfectly well the first time you wrote it.

You don't seem to understand that if the quotation simply offers an option of whether to dismiss or not to dismiss as you claim, then it doesn't offer support for choosing either option. So, why do you use it as though it offers support for dismissal?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You don't seem to understand that if the quotation simply offers an option of whether to dismiss or not to dismiss as you claim, then it doesn't offer support for choosing either option.

It does offer justification for dismissing a claim if it lacks evidence to back it.

So, why do you use it as though it offers support for dismissal?

I use it as justification for dismissing bare assertions.

 

[paarsurrey]

False. The burden of proof rests with the person who states that gods exist. That's how the burden of proof works. The person who claims that something exists has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the something exists. That is basic logic.

I don't agree with one.
I believe, anybody who asserts* something whether for "existing" something or "non-existing" of something actively, has to lift the burden of proof, please.
And it is reasonable.
Right, please?

Regards
___________

*To assert :
as·sert
əˈsərt/
verb

1. state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.
   "the company asserts that the cuts will not affect development"
   synonyms: declare, maintain, contend, argue, state, claim, propound, proclaim, announce, pronounce, swear, insist, avow; More
   
   • cause others to recognize (one's authority or a right) by confident and forceful behavior.
     "the good librarian is able to assert authority when required"
     synonyms: insist on, stand up for, uphold, defend, contend, establish, press for, push for, stress
     "we find it difficult to assert our rights"
   • behave or speak in a confident and forceful manner.
     "it was time to assert himself"
     synonyms: behave confidently, speak confidently, be assertive, put oneself forward, take a stand, make one's presence felt;
     informalput one's foot down
     "she was finally asserting herself, just like everyone told her to"

assert - Google Search

 

[joe1776]

It does offer justification for dismissing a claim if it lacks evidence to back it.

The word "justification" implies a supporting reason. There's no supporting reason to choose dismissal over acceptance if dismissal is simply an option. Your debate opponent who accepts the belief without evidence to support its validity would be on an equal footing if your interpretation of "optional" is correct.

The Hitchens quote, IMO, is one of those condescending comments that supports the Arrogant Atheist stereotype. It plays well enough when pitted against faith-based religion but it fails when applied to science and other kinds of reasoning problems.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I don't agree with one.
I believe, anybody who asserts* something whether for "existing" something or "non-existing" of something actively, has to lift the burden of proof, please.

You are asserting that God exists. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you, not with atheists who don't believe you.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The word "justification" implies a supporting reason.

The supporting reason is the burden of proof which is a part of using logic in an argument. Those who make a claim have the burden of proof to support that claim. The burden of proof doesn't lie with people who are skeptical of the claim.

There's no supporting reason to choose dismissal over acceptance if dismissal is simply an option. Your debate opponent who accepts the belief without evidence to support its validity would be on an equal footing if your interpretation of "optional" is correct.

Believing something to be true is not evidence that it is true. If that were the case, then I could turn the Moon into a big chunk of cheese by just believing that it was made of cheese. For some strange reason, reality doesn't work like that.

The Hitchens quote, IMO, is one of those condescending comments that supports the Arrogant Atheist stereotype. It plays well enough when pitted against faith-based religion but it fails when applied to science and other kinds of reasoning problems.

It applies equally well to science, as already discussed.

 

[paarsurrey]

You are asserting that God exists. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you, not with atheists who don't believe you.

And our friend @Thermos aquaticus does not assert that "G-d does not exist". Is it so, please?

Regards

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And our friend @Thermos aquaticus does not assert that "G-d does not exist". Is it so, please?

Regards

That is so. I don't know if gods exist or not, and I don't claim to know. However, I lack a belief that gods exist because I have yet to see compelling evidence for their existence.

 

[joe1776]

The supporting reason is the burden of proof which is a part of using logic in an argument. Those who make a claim have the burden of proof to support that claim. The burden of proof doesn't lie with people who are skeptical of the claim.

So, since you're introducing a new factor, burden of proof, into our exchange, is this your admission that I'm right that the Hitchens quote on its own doesn't justify a dismissal of a claim if your interpretation of the quote, as only offering an option, is correct?

 

[paarsurrey]

That is so. I don't know if gods exist or not, and I don't claim to know. However, I lack a belief that gods exist because I have yet to see compelling evidence for their existence.

OK, thanks. But other Atheism people overwhelmingly are not like our friend @Thermos aquaticus. Right, please?
Regards

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So, since you're introducing a new factor, burden of proof, into our exchange, . . .

The factor was there from the very start. It is the basis of what Hitchens was saying and trying to communicate.

is this your admission that I'm right that the Hitchens quote on its own doesn't justify a dismissal of a claim if your interpretation of the quote, as only offering an option, is correct?

You have twisted yourself into knots. It is such a simple, simple concept. If a person makes a claim then they need to supply evidence if they expect to convince others. If a claim lacks evidence, then you are justified in rejecting it if you choose to reject it. If you think a claim has merit but lacks evidence, then you are free to search for that evidence so that you can convince others that the claim is true. Simple concepts. Why are they so hard for you to understand?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

OK, thanks. But other Atheism people overwhelmingly are not like our friend @Thermos aquaticus. Right, please?
Regards

What do you base this on? Do you have surveys that can back up this claim? Almost all of the atheists I am personally familiar with are like me.

 

[Willamena]

OK, thanks. But other Atheism people overwhelmingly are not like our friend @Thermos aquaticus. Right, please?
Regards

Right. Most of us have seen good evidence that "God" is ridiculous and/or unbelievable.

 

[joe1776]

The factor [burden of proof] was there from the very start. It is the basis of what Hitchens was saying and trying to communicate.

In your post #89, which began our exchange, you quoted me as follows:

"Are you saying that unless claims of precognition and telepathy have been demonstrated to be true, that precognition and telepathy are therefore impossible? If you are, that's nonsense."

You then quoted Hitchens:

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

So, what claim did I make and how did the burden of proof fall on me?