Are atheists intellectual beggars?

Are atheists intellectual beggars?

Begging the Question (Another atheist fundie favourite)
The begging the question fallacy is sometimes referred to as reasoning in a circle, or circularity. This is because, in this fallacy, the arguer tries to get you to accept the very thing he’s trying to prove. The failed argument essentially looks like this: “If God was great then why…” Said as “If God then X must be true.” However, the terms used are typically clothed in different language so that it doesn’t seem to be repeating the same point. In logical terms, begging the question says the same thing in the premises as it does in the conclusion.
Here’s a common example: “God does not exist because the theists have no proof. And we know that you can never prove a negative.” It is implied that lack of proof is proof (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and a negative can be proven) of no God So this is basically saying, “We know God does not exist because God does not exist.” This is begging the question, reasoning in a circle, assuming what is trying to be proved.
atheist-reason

Like this dismal failure in logic from this pseudo-intellectual

-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
– Christopher Hitchens.

To him I would say:

-You’re opinion when asserted, can be accepted or dismissed without justification.
– George Arnold

Advertisements

7 responses

  1. I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It’s a very easy on the eyes which
    makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often.
    Did you hire out a developer to create your theme?

    Outstanding work!

  2. “It is implied that lack of proof is proof (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and a negative can be proven) of no God So this is basically saying, “We know God does not exist because God does not exist.””

    There is not the slightest speck of a crumb of a hint of evidence. It’s not like proof is just around the corner, just one more test away. The fact that multiple faiths have been based on absolutely nothing but fresh air beggars belief. Countless thousands or millions tortured, persecuted, murdered, mentally abused and discriminated against for what?

    Which god should one choose? Is there a deity comparison site you can recommend? Perhaps you should just drop a line to one of these gods and ask for a bit of help: ‘Any chance you could manifest yourself here on earth just to shut all these whining atheists up once and for all? Oh, and by the way, it would help our cause if totally innocent people stopped being killed in the name of religion, not great PR to be honest.’

    And to those nutjobs who claim that their god has spoken to them, do they not stop to consider for one second how arrogant that appears? Why has a god not spoken to ME and tried to change MY mind? What makes YOU so effing special?

    I don’t need any faith to provide me with a spiritual crutch, or to calibrate my moral compass. And then the most hilarious thing of all is seeing some candle waving morons holding a vigil after some natural disaster or terrorist atrocity. What are these people thinking?

    • What are you babbling about moron? This is an Agnostic site. We don’t claim to know what other idiots claim as truth. What makes me so special… easy I can answer the God question truthfully… I DON’T KNOW…

      How about you do you know if there is a god or not?

  3. “Like this dismal failure in logic from this pseudo-intellectual”

    -That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    – Christopher Hitchens.

    Are you on crack? Hitchens’ statement is a truism. The alternative is that the burden of proof falls on those opposing unsubstantiated claims instead of those making them.

  4. Hitchens’s statement is nothing but babble… His statement relies entirely on the premise that somebody has made a claim. As an agnostic the most I can claim is that I don’t think I know. Or a theist (More atheist drivel… like anyone claims to even be a theist or identifies themselves as such) who chooses to believe in god. Sure you can find some nitwit and hold him up as claimant but really … if he claim he knows there are aliens or ghosts would he be a creditable whitness or Nit Whitness 🙂

    Like any atheist your rhetoric totally depends on some uneducated person claiming he knows something you cannot disprove. Even atheists have developed the pointless stance of a lackey in that they Lackey a belief in the existence of god 🙂

    Really the only truism here is that I don’t know and I know you don’t know either…

    Ya know 🙂

    • I would just like to point out that calling Christopher Hitchens uneducated is factually incorrect. He is educated and intelligent, as evidenced by his education, his eloquence when speaking, his impressive writing abilities, his fantastic career in journalism, and his immense vocabulary. Being educated does not preclude one from being incorrect I admit, but that particular claim of yours that he is uneducated is incorrect.

      “What you seem to have overlooked is that this is blog is called “AGNOSTIC HUMOR” but I’m guessing you missed that small detail…”

      I would also like to address your comment (in reply to Lucas) which seems to imply that there are no intelligent theists who make a claim, or the claim that Hitchens seems to be addressing anyway. Please correct me if this understanding is wrong. Again, you are incorrect. Christian apologetics is essentially an entire school of “thought” with the ultimate goal of providing evidence and proof for the existence of God. In fact, Christopher Hitchens had a debate with someone (William Lane Craig or something like that), a theist who is educated and very eloquent about this very topic. Craig proposed 5 arguments that he believed proved the existence of God. Or, to be more specific if you like, he claimed his arguments proved the existence of God as the most likely reality given the evidence. This is a claim, even if it does not admit to 100% certainty, it is a very strong claim. In fact, Craig suggested that Hitchens should convert to Christianity after he failed to address Craig’s arguments, a pretty strong statement for something that, according to you, isn’t truly a claim. I actually addressed Craig’s arguments on my blog, The Atheist of Melos.

      “I can’t speak for Craig or his claims but both Craig and Hitchens mad money off of their claims… and Hutchens refused to debate me online… on 5 seperate occasions…

      Furthermore, you don’t seem to know much about Hitchens. This is evidenced by your confusion about Hitchens’ beliefs. It seems to me, (again, correct me if I’m wrong) that you believe that Hitchens thinks there is 100% no god. In fact, he has stated quite frequently and publicly that he does not believe you can disprove the existence of a god. However, as there there is no evidence of anything supernatural and since the universe can be explained materially he finds the likelihood that there is a god so infinitesimal that he feels comfortable calling himself an atheist. But again, he always mentions with this statement that he cannot absolutely disprove god, but he is operating on the assumption that god is not real because, for all practical purposes in our lives, god isn’t.

      “I care to know about Hutchens I found him to be ignorant and arrogant much like yourself… He admits he can’t disprove god but that doesn’t stop him form passing judgement on his existance… and he hedges his bet by supporting his position with the hasty generalization fallacy. When in reality his and atheists position without any proof is just 50-50… you are the opposite side of the same coin in a coin toss… nothing more”

      If there was some practical difference between saying I believe in god and I believe we can’t know there is a god, I am sure he would have selected the latter, but there is no practical difference. Either way, you operate under the assumption that no god is intervening in your life. For what do you do differently operating under the assumption that there could be a god?

      “No there is just something wrong with you saying that like it is true lol… repeat after me… I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know I don’t know we getting it now :)”

      I would assume you just live your life without fear of any divine intervention. As does an atheist. So practically, there is no difference but rather, there is a difference in semantics. If this entire blog is devoted to semantics, then I suggest that you find something better to do with your time, though you are free to do what you like of course.

      ” You assume many things about me none of which are correct…”

      Furthermore, Hitchens does not even have a problem with the idea of a god necessarily, but rather that this god is the Christian god, the Muslim god, the Hindu god, et cetera. These are in fact claims (I don’t know what you would call them…suggestions? They are certainly not suggestions to those who believe them). If there is a god, this deity is CERTAINLY not the deity of any current man-made religion.The proof lies in all of the evidence, which shows that all religions are man-made and solely exist to suit the needs and wants of humanity, in addition to being contradictory, self-contradictory, often paradoxical, et cetera. I know that you are an agnostic and so do not believe in these religions any more than I do as an atheist. I am just trying to show that religious people or “theists” definitely make claims, and very bold ones at that.

      “Hitchens was a comedic psudo intellectual who frequented comedy shows… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoclaTQWzvc he never wanted anyone opinion other than his own…”

      Hitchens is perfectly within reason to assert that these claims require evidence to hold weight in society, especially in places like the classroom or government office. And he is also correct to assert that these claims have no evidence. He is therefore correct to assert that these claims can be dismissed.

      Yes yes we know 🙂
      -That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
      – Christopher Hitchens.

      To which I replied
      -An atheist fundie opinion offered when asked, can be accepted or dismissed without justification to warrant it.

      If I put a bit of black paint on white canvas and called it “Polar bear in a snow storm” Would I need to prove that it was? Or am I justified in my belief that it is what it looks like to me? To argue the existence of God you need to find the low hanging fruit that make claims… instead of just saying I choose to believe in God like many do.. no different than your Lack of belief.. like that’s any different than I believe there is no God in the real world…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s