Ian Hutchinson on Engaging Today's Militant Atheist Arguments

[STEVONYMO]

If I was to sit and write all the things that science cannot explain I would be here a very, very long time...I feel sorry that some of you have not experienced things that you cannot explain. I'm lucky I have and I am a completly sane and rational computer scentist that works for a very large company. I'm not writing a book or looking for fame...I'm just trying to get to the truth and my truth is that I have seen shit that can't be explained and it was seen by family members also at the time.

[TheSamuraiGoomba]

I don't see why there's a problem with assuming science is the best way to know anything that's available to us today. The methods of experimentation and peer review eliminate bias. Most of our advancements came from science.

When we didn't know much about elements, people thought you could turn lead into gold. As we learned more about the subject, alchemy became chemistry as it became more scientific. Science isn't just "evolution," it's every subject approached with scientific methods.

[DarkEmergence]

Arguments? Wouldn't a Militant Atheist just physical hurt people? Like the way a Militant Muslim would strap a bomb to his chest or a Militant Christian would shoot up an abortion clinic? What exactly makes Dawkins a militant that can't be said for the average Christian Apologist?

[jerrydecaire1]

Thanks for pointing out to a nuclear physicist how science works. I suppose when he finally gets it like you have, he'll change his absurd ways and become an atheist-like you.

[robvlob]

Saying science is the best or only know way to demonstrate repeatably facts is not akin to saying science is the only way of proving facts. Science may not be the only way of demonstrating facts repeatedly, but so far its the best we have. If there is some other way come up with it, there would be a noble prize in this finding.

Furthermore it seems the more science finds out about reality the more theists use its findings to assert that its a proof of their deity. Seems a bit contradictory.

[julzabro]

Calling someone a "militant Atheist" is like calling someone militant regarding logic/reason. Science is the only arena where theories are tested and can be proven OR disproven. So saying someone calling science..."all the real knowledge there is"...is saying that he or she is 100% correct. It's not militant at all to require theories to be proven before believing in them...it's logical.

[Anglican08]

@julzabro I can see where your coming from but you may want to watch an interview with A.J Ayer on logical postivism on youtube, where he talks about this subject. Even if you don't agree with him I think you'll enjoy the discussion.

[julzabro]

@Anglican08 Thanx, I'll check that out.

[Anglican08]

@julzabro your welcome, I found part 4 of the discussion the best part.

[jerrydecaire1]

@julzabro What logic are you talking about? The logic emanating from a cobbled together brain by chance which only concerns itself with survival rather than truth? The big bang is thought real only by circumstantial evidence (red shift) rather than replicable science and yet we accept that to be true. This circumstantial evidence is likened to the fine tuning of the universal constants which lead many to conjecture a God...

[julzabro]

@jerrydecaire1 "The big bang is thought real only by circumstantial evidence (red shift) rather than replicable science and yet we accept that to be true." The Big Bang THEORY is NOT accepted as fact or, at least, not the complete by science which is y they r looking at various other explanations up 2 & including that there was nothing prior 2 the Big Bang. Science doesn't claim truths but merely tested facts. Not knowing exactly how we got here doesn't = a supernatural skydaddy.

[ivlfounder]

@Morgethein

It's right there at the top "Professor Hutchinson, I hope you are prepared to be --*EXPELLED*-- from M.I.T. You so richly deserve it."

Not all atheists are like this but my God some are bigoted.

[ivlfounder]

@Morgethein

Oh right because I don't think it right that people be fired for believing in God I'm a militant.

[niriop]

Dawkins does engage on a philosophical level in The God Delusion: he refutes all of Aquinas' proofs, reformulates the Cosmological Paradox (as the Ultimate Boeing 747), and accounts responses for various other philosophical and theological questions, drawing on both his biological work and common sense reasoning. Just saying that god is above scientific hypothesis does not refute these comments.

Hutchinson also seems to keep confusing Dawkins with Stenger as well.

[jerrydecaire1]

@niriop Hutchinson fully understands science and he has less of a problem with God than the people posting here who know far less. Maybe he's on to something? Maybe he's got something you don't? One thing for sure, you don't ahve anything he doesn't. Think about that.

[niriop]

@jerrydecaire1 Erm...what?

[DarkEmergence]

@niriop Basically, he didn't really have a response to you so he tried an argument from authority.

[mechanicmike69]

What a delusional fuck. Talks about the pillars of atheism, yet forgets the pillars at the four corners of the earth, you know that bullshit from the bible. How can this ignorant ass (yes you are fucking ignorant if you call your ignorance; "god") criticize anything when the foundation he is arguing from has demonstratively been shown to be false with the microscope and telescope. How can anyone that takes his knowledge from only one book criticize the ones that take it from thousands of books?

[indignant99]

Professor Hutchinson, I hope you are prepared to be --*EXPELLED*-- from M.I.T. You so richly deserve it.

[ivlfounder]

@indignant99

LOL does it cause you physical pain to know he's smarter than you?

[mechanicmike69]

@ivlfounder Hey look it's the ignorant yet condescending ivlfounder. What a delusional fuck.

[ivlfounder]

@mechanicmike69

And here we see a great example of the intelligence faith haters claim goes hand in hand with atheism.

[disrxt]

"Militant atheist", start right off trying to insult your opposition. Atheist is simply not enough, sad. Try to prove your God exist, maybe you'll convince a few if you can meet that burden of proof. Of course you got nothing so attack straw men instead.

[jshjamaarify]

@disrxt Oh please.

[rusty2029]

@disrxt I would ask how you think atheist meet the burden of proof for the positive assertion that there is no deity?

[disrxt]

@rusty2029 I see no evidence for the existence of a deity. I see no evidence for the existence of leprechauns. Do you suggest I need to prove to you that no leprechauns exist also? You make the positive claim, not me! Show me objective evidence. Don't take it personal, I reject all gods, not only your preferred fantasy.

[thunderbolt94]

@disrxt

1) What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

2) You can prove that leprechauns don't exist.

3) Anyone who makes ANY positive claim (and claiming that God does not exist is a positive claim) has the burden of proof.

4) Don't worry, I don't. I don't take youtube atheism seriously anyway. ^_^

[disrxt]

@thunderbolt94 Leprechauns are invisible beings that live in Fairy Land. They act in your life only if you truly believe in them. Since I do believe they assist me in my daily activities. How dare you disrespect the Leprechauns, my beliefs deserve repect. What possible proof could you offer to shake my faith in little green men?

[thunderbolt94]

@disrxt

Invisible green men is a logical contradiction because something can't be green and invisible. There you go. I just proved a negative.

[disrxt]

@disrxt Green is a metaphor for the lifeforce behind the Leprechauns, you insist on taking it all literally, that is your mistake. Try again.

[Daxcheese]

@disrxt Green in the context of leprechauns is historically not a metaphor for the life-force behind leprechauns, this is not a position held by ANYONE who believes in leprechauns, and is therefore most likely a false proposition stated by someone attempting to make a false analogy between belief in leprechauns and belief in God/s while believing in neither.

[disrxt]

@Daxcheese You don't define Leprechauns for me buddy. How dare you disrespect my beliefs. You must prove they don't exist, else they do.

[Daxcheese]

@disrxt I didnt define leprechauns, Im telling you the definition of leprechauns according to everyone but yourself. I did not disrespect your beliefs, I have neither cursed leprechauns nor people who believe in them, nor did I suggest that I am smarter/better than those who do. And friend, do you think it fair to make carricatures of the weakest side of an opposing viewpoint (ie laypeople) to support your own position, while ignoring any possible stronger/scholarly arguments?

[rusty2029]

@disrxt I see that the atheist is blind to the evidence. I see the atheist that is blind to there own need to show proof for the positive assertion of atheism. The rational mind requires evidence amiright? Yet the atheist claims a blind null and thus dogmatically claims a lack of need for there own position. This is only the tactic of the intellectually dishonest atheist. What do you count as evidence? Can you use what you count as evidence to give rationality for your position?

[disrxt]

@rusty2029 Verifiable repeatable experiment, artifacts, logic reason, mathematics. The evidences accepted by science for confirmation of events in nature, that's what I'll accept as evidence for your deity. Unfortunately you have none. I will never be able to difinitively discount the existance of any supernatural entity, but I can discount the Christian God as nonsense.

[rusty2029]

@disrxt In the limitations you set up I can discount the text you see here as only pixels of black and white as the semiotics of meaning are not material but a way to convey immaterial concepts. There are components of science that are not testable so the strict hegemony of verificationism fails as we should never leave the house because we can't test if it is going to be safe outside this day. I can see that the box you can't think outside of and is anti-science so much is nonsense for you.

[indignant99]

@rusty2029 They don't make that positive assertion.

[rusty2029]

@indignant99 The law of the excluded middle means that a proposition can not be both true and false so if God is false then this is a positive assertion of truth. If you are not making that positive assertion then God is true. I guess that clears up the issue of you taking a position and then believe you have the truth.

[thunderbolt94]

@disrxt

Wow. Denying the obvious. Yawn. Thanks for proving the point of the video. Youtube atheism is a joke.