Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[Rise]

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 logical 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 what 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.

 

[McBell]

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.

Cool critique of Hitchens.
Now do the same to Craig.

 

[George-ananda]

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.

 

[Rise]

Cool critique of Hitchens.
Now do the same to Craig.

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.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

This atheist agrees with your sentiment (maybe not the "anger and resentment at God" thing, I think it's more just that he finds the actions and properties attributed to God repugnant, which I can understand).

"New Atheism" and the "Four Horsemen" are embarrassments for the most part. Mostly sophomoric stuff by mostly non-philosophers. And their followers on social media are usually the worst sort of internet atheists: nasty, misogynistic, surprisingly alt-right, "facts don't care about your feelings" (even if they do not have the facts on their side on an issue), etc.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

I can debate Craig. I have debated Craig via correspondence, though not as often as I debated Alvin Plantinga.

 

[AlexanderG]

I'm an atheist and I agree that Hitchens' strong point wasn't logical argumentation. Rather, he excelled at doing internal critiques of Christianity. Christianity isn't really coherent from an outsider's perspective, unless you redefine "love" to mean what most people consider to be "hatred," and redefine "good" to mean the conventional definition of "evil." This is true both in how the Bible actually describes god, but also in how Christians treat other people. Hitchens really drove that point home. He was a great iconoclast.

Atheists don't need to disprove any theist claims, or that a god exists. We simply need to point out why theistic claims fail, and why the gods claimed by theists are not evident in reality. Craig is very easy to dismantle in that regard. I've never seen him make a valid and sound argument for the existence of a god, and I've watched many of his debates, podcast discussions, and presentations.

Your "angry at god" trope is so meaningless. One of the few things I can be absolutely certain of is the content of my own thoughts. If you claim that I'm not thinking what I in fact know I'm thinking, then this lets me be absolutely certain you are wrong. You should really stop psychologizing atheists because it dramatically weakens your case. I don't believe any gods exist. I can't be angry at something I think is imaginary. If you "deny in your heart" that the Hindu pantheon exists, does that mean you are secretly angry at karma? Can you see why this argument is ridiculous?

 

[Rise]

I can debate Craig. I have debated Craig via correspondence, though not as often as I debated Alvin Plantinga.

Can you offer a logically valid counter argument to core arguments Craig presented that Hitchens just ignored?

i would like to see the attempt, as I haven't seen it done in any debates of his I have watched yet.

 

[Meow Mix]

Can you offer a logically valid counter argument to core arguments Craig presented that Hitchens just ignored?

i would like to see the attempt, as I haven't seen it done in any debates of his I have watched yet.

I haven't seen the video in question. Which arguments did Craig present? Kalam cosmological?

 

[epronovost]

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.

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.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm uniquely positioned to rebut his cosmological argument because I'm an astrophysics grad student. I've read the paper he usually cites by Vilenkin et al and I know he (Craig) doesn't understand it.

 

[McBell]

I haven't seen the video in question. Which arguments did Craig present? Kalam cosmological?

Craig used cosmological argument, teleological argument, moral argument and the resurrection of Jesus and the immediate experience of God as his main arguments.
​

Does God Exist Debate Successful and Encourages Dialogue​

 

[AlexanderG]

Craig used cosmological argument, teleological argument, moral argument and the resurrection of Jesus and the immediate experience of God as his main arguments.
​

Does God Exist Debate Successful and Encourages Dialogue​

Exactly. Each of these arguments are fallacious (invalid) or have unsound premises, or both. This has been clearly, concisely demonstrated countless times. As atheists, we point this out and explain that this is why we don't believe you. It's not that complicated. If you want to make metaphysical claims about the fundamental natural of reality, you need to bring more than conceptual speculation, post-hoc rationalization, intuition, personal feelings, ancient anonymous hearsay, or logical fallacies.

 

[Meow Mix]

Craig used cosmological argument, teleological argument, moral argument and the resurrection of Jesus and the immediate experience of God as his main arguments.
​

Does God Exist Debate Successful and Encourages Dialogue​

Well I won't have time to watch the entire video tonight, or probably anytime this week. I'm typing on RF in between stuff for my thesis which I really need to try and get as much done as I can before a meeting on Friday. If OP wants me to respond to one of them and someone wants to give me an approximate time stamp I could probably type up for the OP an example of a response to Craig's arguments.

 

[epronovost]

Craig used cosmological argument, teleological argument, moral argument and the resurrection of Jesus and the immediate experience of God as his main arguments.
​

Does God Exist Debate Successful and Encourages Dialogue​

But all three of these arguments have been demonstrated as completely bunk about three centuries ago. Hell, even in the late Middle Ages they weren't all that hot. That's not exactly strong what I would call sound logical argument. Most of these are lifted straight from Thomas Aquinas.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Not logical from your perspective you mean? Assessment of debate performance is always subjective and based on which side you support in my view.
I have not watched Hitchens at all, so do not know what he says or does not.

In my view every argument made by WLC can be easily countered and has been multiple times in many debates.

 

[AlexanderG]

I'm uniquely positioned to rebut his cosmological argument because I'm an astrophysics grad student. I've read the paper he usually cites by Vilenkin et al and I know he (Craig) doesn't understand it.

Nice. I was in a PhD program for molecular biology and my thesis was going to be based on a set of articles about some unique metabolism in a bacterial species. I was going to get into the genetics and enzymatic activity behind those initial findings. When it turned out the data in those papers had been fabricated(!), I decided to cut my losses and get out with a Master's degree. My lab later published an article delineating the negative findings that falsified those original papers because other labs had started noticing them and getting interested, too. So, that happened. Fortunately it turned out for the best in the end. I don't think my true calling was scientific research.

Still, I know enough for it to be painfully clear how little creationists and apologists know about evolution, biology, or the scientific method. It's like there's this body of false memes about evolution that they pass back and forth to each other within their community without ever cross-checking these notions with actual biologists. Unfortunately I hear atheists make mistakes too, although it's much rarer and usually minor.

 

[F1fan]

It's been a while since I watched this debate. I've watched many of Hitchen's debates and interviews. He certainly had an attitude and swagger that carries a lot of credibility. Craig's arguments were exceptionally weak and make constant annoying assumptions that he was often allowed to get away with.

I don't remember Hitchen's arguing that a God doesn't exist. Perhaps he's made some conclusions by using theistic claims that could be debunked.

I'll note that theists have a huge and unwindable burden. Atheists just have to point out the serious shortcomings in the claims theists make.

Hitchen's approach has often been from assuming the Bible is true and exposing the absurdities of believing in these stories and this God. It's not my approach but I do find him entertaining.

 

[Rise]

Hitchens really drove that point home. He was a great iconoclast.

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.

Atheists don't need to disprove any theist claims, or that a god exists. We simply need to point out why theistic claims fail, and why the gods claimed by theists are not evident in reality.

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.

Craig is very easy to dismantle in that regard.

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.

I've never seen him make a valid and sound argument for the existence of a god, and I've watched many of his debates, podcast discussions, and presentations.

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.

Your "angry at god" trope is so meaningless.

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 don't believe any gods exist. I can't be angry at something I think is imaginary.

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.

 

[sayak83]

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.

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.