Christopher Hitchens delivers the Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture at UCLA

On March 3, 2010, author and journalist Christopher Hitchens delivered the 2010 Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture at UCLA. The lecture was presented by the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, the Daniel Pearl Foundation and the Yitzhak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life at UCLA.

A well-known commentator on contemporary thought, politics and culture, Hitchens has written more than a dozen books and corresponded from more than 60 countries. He has contributed regularly to the Atlantic, Slate, Vanity Fair, the New York Review of Books, the London Review of Books, Washington Post Book World, the Nation, the National Review and the New Left Review, among other media outlets. Honored frequently for his reporting and the literary quality of his prose, Hitchens received a National Magazine Award in 2007 and was a finalist for a 2007 National Book Award. He appears frequently on radio and television broadcasts.

BACKGROUND:
Daniel Pearl was a prominent Wall Street Journal reporter and the paper's South Asia bureau chief when he was kidnapped and murdered by terrorists in Pakistan in early 2002. Pearl's father, Judea Pearl, a computer science professor at UCLA, and his family established the Daniel Pearl Foundation to promote and continue Daniel's mission of fostering cross-cultural understanding throughout the world. The lecture series, established at UCLA in 2002, features scholars, journalists and policymakers who have contributed original analyses or constructive approaches to problems of international concern.

Previous presenters of the Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture have included Anderson Cooper, David Brooks, Ted Koppel, Larry King, Jeff Greenfield, Daniel Schorr and Thomas Friedman. In 2006, a parallel lecture series was established at Stanford University, which has featured Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Philip Zimbardo, Bernard-Henri Lévy and Christiane Amanpour.

• Category

  News & Politics

[BorkaBonum]

I'm not confused. The definitions are remarkably simple and definite.

Proving a negative tends to be impossible or at any rate unreasonable. Thus when discussing Theism the proposition that there are no God(s) often does not require the burden of proof to be met as the proposition that any (traditionally described) God(s) exist have not been met.

The Atheist in this case does have the burden of proof. Though its a position much like denying the existance of any other fictional entity.

[vincentfromyay1]

you're getting bogged down by these definitions you've been reading. to make it simple for you; if someone says that there is no god then that person lands themselves with the burden of proof. forget the terms, atheist, agnostic etc; you'll just get confused.

[BorkaBonum]

The definitions have nothing to do with the burden of proof. Also a basic understanding of what the words mean seem to be in order when discussing categorizations of people under the same labels.

An Atheist claiming there not being any God though falls into a category of which where evidence is impossible. Proving a negative tends to do just that. But it's an easy case for an Atheist to flesh out; as it is merely following the available evidence.

[vincentfromyay1]

no, you've obviously not being following the debate. instead you thought you'd try to impress with some definitions you stumbled upon in some textbook or other. so, to recap (avoiding any terms that will have you out of your pram again); the burden of proof is on the one who makes the bold claim. so, in this case, if someone says there is no god then the burden of proof is on them. it's not complicated.

[BorkaBonum]

I understand the usage of words change, evolve, over time. But that doesn't by any means make you dictate what words mean as little as I do. In contrast to my usage of the two terms yours is muddled together to the point of uselessness.

I've defined by what standards I use the terms. If that's not enough for you then I too have very limited interest in forwarding this meaningless exchange.

[vincentfromyay1]

no, you're too rigid in your devotion to some definitions or others you've come across in your textbooks. it doesn't work like that. a word means one thing, originally, and the meaning changes, develops over time. words are our servants; not our masters. relax, accept this, and then you can join in the debate.

[BorkaBonum]

No.

Theism has to do with belief and gnosticism about knowledge.

Atheism - lack of belief in a God or Gods.

Agnocticism - lack of knowledge (in the existance of a God or Gods).

That whole sugarcoating business of agnosticism is pretty damn frustrating as the agnostic laber also applies to theists using the word in the way the lay man uses it, where it has to do with knowledge as in facts. As there are no facts available for the existance of any deity then everyone is agnostic.

[vincentfromyay1]

you're correct ; 'atheism' without dogmatism is agnosticism. i use the term 'dogmatic atheist', knowing that it is tautological, ie, the dogmatic part should go without say. the reason i use it is because lots of people (eg, dawkins, hitchens, dawkins fanboys, hitchens fanboys) call themselves atheists, then plead that they are ultimately agnostic, but then contradict themselves by dogmatically declaring that there is no god (where they end up stuck with the burden of proof).

[Mio Orion]

If you want to, please define dogmatism in relation to atheism, and some concrete example of non-dogmatic theists and non-dogmatic atheists?? Because I would not dare to claim anything before I get yours and others definition regarding dogmatism in atheism. My problem with that would be that in a broad sense we would all be dogmatic. Atheism without dogmatism would be agnosticism. But then, most sane people would claim a 99.9% chance against god?

[vincentfromyay1]

i see your point. a dogmatic theist would have the burden of proof also. but what's being discussed here is dogmatic atheism. hitchens and other dogmatic atheists fall into this trap time and time again.