[.eXe]

Now I am not denying that he was a brilliant mind, and he tried his best to defend his point of view well, but exactly why do people follow this guy so devoutly?

I have seen so many debates where Hitchens blatantly fails, and yet it's breathtaking to see just blind support for whatever he says.

Ironically, many atheists agree with everything Hitchens says in the same blind way that they accuse religious people of following their respective Gods. It's quite sad.

In the video below, please just forget whether you are atheist or theist. Just evaluate the arguments and the few analysis texts in the video, from a logical perspective. If you feel that any of the text is wrong, feel free to post here why it is so. I just want to know what's so great about this man, who at least in my opinion...was unable to defend his own point of view, when placed under heavy scrutiny.

To be frank, I don't think Hitchens has ever been asked to justify his own beliefs before, but on the rare occasion he was, In my opinion at least, he performed less than ideally.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIj...feature=g-vrec

[Craig_D]

I certainly wouldn't follow Hitchens blindly, and he wouldn't want anyone to follow him blindly, but he generally is a good speaker and a few of his quotes perfectly capture key points that atheists make. Eg: What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof (though this is owed partially to Carl Sagan).

On that video specifically, I've only watched a minute or two of it so far, but I'm already irritated by Craig's line of questioning. As a professional philosopher he knows that he's demanding something that atheism intrinsically cannot provide (whether it happens to be true or not). The concept of disproving the existence of anything is nonsense, you cannot prove that Megladon is no longer still alive, or that Santa doesn't exist, but what you can do it demonstrate that there isn't just cause for believing that those things exist. However, to the crowd, it appears that Craig has asked a reasonable question to which Hitchens cannot think of an answer, scoring a point for Craig.

Hitchens, Dawkins and all the rest are implicit atheists, but Craig uses straw-man arguments and questions them as if they are explicit atheists. He knows that asking about proof against the existence of God is an irrelevant and unanswerable question which has no actual bearing on the theism vs atheism debate but he asks it anyway (and he asks it in every debate) because it sounds good, which makes me think that he's something of a fraud. If it were Kent Hovind, Ted Haggard or someone in a Youtube comment I'd accept that they didn't know any better, but Craig - a professional philosopher - should, and does.

The salient point is that something that does not exist intrinsically cannot leave evidence behind showing that it does not exist. Why? Because it does not exist in the first place in order to leave that evidence behind. Maybe now I should watch the rest of the video.

(Then again, given that Craig has used The Kalām Cosmological Argument for 33 years without realising that it begs the question, maybe he really doesn't know any better.)

[.eXe]

(Original post by Craig_D)
~

Thanks. I would really suggest you complete the video. I am not particularly interested in what Craig said...rather it is what Hitchens said that caught my attention.

Don't reject the video merely because Craig annoys you. Just evaluate Hitchens' own arguments when asked simply what his beliefs are.

[FrigidSymphony]

What he's struggling with (and be careful to not confuse "struggling" with Hitchens' usual slow speaking style; he frequently pauses for great lengths and continues the sentence) is Craig's stunning inability to understand atheism outside of his attempt to portray it as an opposite equivalent to theism. Craig is also a skilled rhetorician (although an absolute moron) and makes it a bit difficult to give him a clear answer, as his questions are never really clear, but Hitchens knew exactly what he was saying. He might have been clearer in his definitions.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. "A" means without, "theism" is belief in gods. It is not the claim that there is no god, it is the absence of claim that there is one. Like saying "I don't think there are evil seagulls", instead of "I believe that there are absolutely no evil seagulls."

This is different from agnosticism because agnosticism makes the claim that we cannot have knowledge about the question. Agnosticism posits the question of god's existence as irrelevant. And agnostic would say that it doesn't matter what he believes or what he thinks as we do not have the knowledge to posit either position. It's a misreading of the question in that it assumes theism and atheism to be contrasting opposites of the same spectrum- they are not.

[.eXe]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
What he's struggling with (and be careful to not confuse "struggling" with Hitchens' usual slow speaking style; he frequently pauses for great lengths and continues the sentence) is Craig's stunning inability to understand atheism outside of his attempt to portray it as an opposite equivalent to theism. Craig is also a skilled rhetorician (although an absolute moron) and makes it a bit difficult to give him a clear answer, as his questions are never really clear, but Hitchens knew exactly what he was saying. He might have been clearer in his definitions.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. "A" means without, "theism" is belief in gods. It is not twhe claim that there is no god, it is the absence of claim that there is one. Like saying "I don't think there are evil seagulls", instead of "I believe that there are absolutely no evil seagulls."

This is different from agnosticism because agnosticism makes the claim that we cannot have knowledge about the question. Agnosticism posits the question of god's existence as irrelevant. And agnostic ould say that it doesn't matter what he believes or what he thinks as we do not have the knowledge to posit either position. It's a misreading of the question in that it assumes theism and atheism to be contrasting opposites of the same spectrum- they are not.

No Hitchens gives us a 5 minute biography of some random individual, because he knows that Craig is on a time limit and he is trying his best to get Hitchens to answer a question. Please don't tell me it's his "slow speaking style". That's a ridiculous argument bud, I have personally seen Hitchens shred others into pieces in other debates. Strangely, that Hitchens was unavailable in this specific debate.

Second, if atheism is merely (as you say) a lack of belief, then Hitchens has literally no ground to stand on. His entire argument is that an opposing argument is wrong. When asked to justify his opposition, he's got nothing. And you apparently concur with him.

Well sir, that just means he shouldn't debate. He has no footing to stand on...all he is saying is that something doesn't exist. It's like a child arguing....arguing just for the sake of something, rather than defending a personal belief system.

Additionally, I find the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument that Hitchens taunts over and over again, quite sad. Extraordinary is quite clearly a subjective term, and if Hitchens' entire position is that the type of evidence HE requires has never been presented, and that he has never been amazed by the extra-ordinariness of said evidence, then he is truly an epic fail debater. It seems Hitchens' only reason to go against God is that sufficient evidence has not been presented to him. That's not an argument lol, it's just a stupid statement.

To be frank, it was quite a giant waste of a heavyweight philosopher like Craig's time to debate a man whose entire argument is based on personal opinion rather than a philosophical and/or objective standpoint.

Craig tried his level best to argue from an objective view, rather than just blindly quoting the Bible, as he could have quite easily.

I expected the same level of objectiveness from Hitchens but sadly, his only argument was based on his own personal convictions.

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by .eXe)
Now I am not denying that he was a brilliant mind, and he tried his best to defend his point of view well, but exactly why do people follow this guy so devoutly?

I have seen so many debates where Hitchens blatantly fails, and yet it's breathtaking to see just blind support for whatever he says.

Ironically, many atheists agree with everything Hitchens says in the same blind way that they accuse religious people of following their respective Gods. It's quite sad.

In the video below, please just forget whether you are atheist or theist. Just evaluate the arguments and the few analysis texts in the video, from a logical perspective. If you feel that any of the text is wrong, feel free to post here why it is so. I just want to know what's so great about this man, who at least in my opinion...was unable to defend his own point of view, when placed under heavy scrutiny.

To be frank, I don't think Hitchens has ever been asked to justify his own beliefs before, but on the rare occasion he was, In my opinion at least, he performed less than ideally.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIj...feature=g-vrec

We don't follow him blindly, we may not agree with everything he says, though we agree with a lot of it.

Hitchens was a fantastic debater, writer and philosopher. Go read some of his books, the strength and clarity of his penmanship is unmistakable.

But also he offers good, solid arguments, if overly confrontational (though religious debates lead to confrontational style, both from the nature of public debating and those you tend to be arguing against.)

You are a theist, and so take the arguments of theist debaters on faith, allowing you to gloss over the logical fallacies they are utterly littered with, while you immediately turn defensive to the arguments of people like Hitchens and Dawkins and don't give them due contemplation. Atheists appreciate Hitchens for his logical clarity, and the way he stands up to the stilted arguments of theists.

Theists dress their arguments up in oratory to hide the flaws in their arguments, as the arguments are utterly unconvincing when laid bare. Hitchens doesn't, his arguments stand on their own without great oratory skills to present them in a way that undermines the criticism of the listener.

That coupled with the infallibility of his research (whereas his opponents so often give completely unfounded claims which turn out on investigation to be false, plucked from thin air) makes him a great debater.




That he doesn't speak as smoothly doesn't mean he has failed in the debate, quite the opposite. I don't think Hitchens ever lost an argument judged purely on the merit of the points made in the discussion.

Also he did a lot more than just argue about Atheism, Hitchens also contemplated economics and morality, communism, secularism and humanism. In fact arguing for Atheism until closer to his death took up a rather small part of his time.


Also, an atheist doesn't need to justify their beliefs because they don't have beliefs. The lack of belief does not need justification, logic dictates that the burden of proof lies squarely with those trying to disprove the null hypothesis, whereas those arguing for the null hypothesis need only demonstrate lack of sufficient proof for its rejection, and the rejection of other positive hypotheses. Atheism is inherently the null hypothesis in theistic arguments.

Atheists don't have to disprove God, they just have to demonstrate that none of the other religions are able to prove him.

[Craig_D]

(Original post by .eXe)
Thanks. I would really suggest you complete the video. I am not particularly interested in what Craig said...rather it is what Hitchens said that caught my attention.

Don't reject the video merely because Craig annoys you. Just evaluate Hitchens' own arguments when asked simply what his beliefs are.

In contrast to many of my fellow admirers of Hitchens, I don't think he explained himself very well in that video, no. He mumbles, corrects himself and dodges the questions, which doesn't look good in that situation. He ended up defensively on the back foot throughout the debate, allowing Craig to dominate the argument.

There's no doubting that Craig is experienced at what he does, setting logical traps and so on, which Hitchens got tangled up in. Unlike many other admirers of Hitchens, I don't think debating was his strong suit, the formal nature of it didn't seem to agree with him; in this one in particular he appeared out of his comfort zone. Defeating Craig would require a lot of preparation and planning in order to effectively combat his arguments, which he had defended hundreds of times before, and knew well how to trap his opponent. Hitchens's general approach it seems was to go to the bar beforehand, and then just wing it. (He defeated Blair and Widdecombe so easily because they were such weak opponents.) Nonetheless I think he was remarkably good at 'winging it', probably one of the best in the world, but it was not enough in this situation. What he should have done was press Craig on the fairness of his questions and the accuracy of his definitions (I would question his definitions of atheism and agnosticism for a start). He should argue with more clarity why atheism doesn't need proof before then demonstrating why belief in God isn't justified. Craig set all the boundaries to suit himself and Hitchens should have done the same, rather than accepting the rules (and therefore traps) that Craig set out. It's easy for me to say that from my computer and very difficult to do on stage, but Hitchens didn't do it.

Not that any of this diminishes my admiration of him, nor should it, debating isn't everything; I wouldn't say that it is the measure of greatness, and it is not the talent that Hitchens will be remembered for. Hitchens remained an excellent writer who wasn't always right, but was always interesting; on his day he could absolutely destroy his opposition. I've never heard anyone so easily able to quote from a vast array of points of reference, be that the large array of books that he read and remembered, obscure events in history, or even his own life, visiting almost every war zone and area of conflict that you could name. I think he had a huge impact on the way that many people think, not necessarily what they think.

[mmmpie]

I think you opened with the answer to your own question.

[joemonaghan]

(Original post by .eXe)

Second, if atheism is merely (as you say) a lack of belief, then Hitchens has literally no ground to stand on. His entire argument is that an opposing argument is wrong. When asked to justify his opposition, he's got nothing. And you apparently concur with him.

Well sir, that just means he shouldn't debate. He has no footing to stand on...all he is saying is that something doesn't exist. It's like a child arguing....arguing just for the sake of something, rather than defending a personal belief system.

Additionally, I find the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument that Hitchens taunts over and over again, quite sad. Extraordinary is quite clearly a subjective term, and if Hitchens' entire position is that the type of evidence HE requires has never been presented, and that he has never been amazed by the extra-ordinariness of said evidence, then he is truly an epic fail debater. It seems Hitchens' only reason to go against God is that sufficient evidence has not been presented to him. That's not an argument lol, it's just a stupid statement.

To be frank, it was quite a giant waste of a heavyweight philosopher like Craig's time to debate a man whose entire argument is based on personal opinion rather than a philosophical and/or objective standpoint.

Lets start with the first statement that by having a lack of belief something you have no ground to stand on. This is idiotic thinking we know that there are many things you do not believe in such as santa claus or the tooth fairy, I bet you would have something to say about that if people believed they were real and it had negative consequences. However, with those two things they are easy to prove false. God is obviously more difficult but also defeated by the most simplest arguments, once you read and fully understand the argument that if there is a God then who created that God. Moreover, we know the books that the faiths stand upon are mostly false, mostly plagiarised and out of date in terms of moral teachings.

Hitchens is defending the quite logical position that you do not believe something without sufficient evidence. This is the reason medicines go through such rigorous procedures before they reach patients. We don't take medicines on faith we take them on evidence provided by testing. Medicines do require extraordinary proof, they go through years and years of testing from the chemical level to animals and finally human testing. We have these systems for a logical reason and all atheists are doing is saying lets apply the same to God. Is there sufficient evidence to prove he exists? Quite simply there isn't there is a lot of things we as humans have yet to understand and many of these things are attributed to God.( A great lecture on this is here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmv...feature=g-vrec)

[R.P.Everything.]

I cringe at that video with Dr. Craig in it. Anyone who says 'you can't prove atheism' has their basic understanding of 'no belief' wrong.

On Hitchens, I'm a big fan, for his outspoken and ballsy comments on people and ideas that others wouldn't dare touch. He resisted threats of personal violence when he harshly condemned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and hasn't been afraid to speak out against the status quo. Also, he's charismatic, compelling and funny - something which many orators from both theist and atheist sides lack.

I don't follow Hitchens blindly - I disagree with his views on the Iraq war and have different interpretations on some of his ideas. However, he had a strong voice for ration and reason, and wasn't afraid to challenge what other people wouldn't. That is probably his best feature - unwavering support for what he believed was right.

[E.Blackadder]

your post is rife with confirmation bias.

here is a decent video explaining the problems with craig's arguments.

[navarre]

Hitchens owned every one he ever debated with, and in style, too.

He was an incredibly intelligent man, who wanted nothing more than to stop religion being shoved down his throat.

[adamrules247]

He was a reasonably good writer, but that's about it. His understanding of philosophy and theology are cringeworthy, as are his attempts to tell direct lies and half truths to make a point. His final article, on G K Chesterton, was especially bad for this.

[AtomSmasher]

Either you are only hearing what you want to hear or you don't entirely understand what Hitchens is saying. It isn't possible to prove the non-existence of anything to the extent that you seem to want proof that God doesn't exist. In any case, the burden of proof is on people claiming God does exist.

Imagine someone claiming that unicorns existed but that they couldn't be sensed in any way known to humans. Would you really expect someone with the opposing opinion to have to prove that unicorns don't exist before their point of view could be considered valid? No. It's exactly the same with 'God'.

I don't think anyone blindly follows Hitchens. I don't think people 'follow' him as such at all, but he is correct a great deal of the time and is a great orator and writer.

[Insanity514]

He came up with good arguments I think, and didn't just regurgitate old arguments (at least most of the time) like some other atheistic thinkers.