Christopher Hitchens Struggles To Define His Atheism

One of the world's most notorious atheists can't even articulate whether or not he asserts the non-existence of God as a claim or merely a lack of belief. He squirms under scrutiny (though kudos to him for actually debating Dr Craig, unlike Professor Dawkins who ran away entirely)! Nevertheless, it must be said that there are far better atheist thinkers out there.

The issue of "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" often comes up, so check out my other video for why it is a completely fallacious argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWi5ZnmNYKs

Clips from other debates include:

Craig vs Slezak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRadlJH67D0
Craig vs Wolpert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qh98DX3-L0

Full Craig vs Hitchens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvj0TVt9Ukc

And I also recommend (especially as proof that there are atheists who give positive evidence against God) Craig vs Dacey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcfwq3GNjOU

Feel free to comment but make sure you double check that the video hasn't already addressed your point. The number of "atheists" who blindly defend Hitchens without even acknowledging his admission is breathtaking (some may even call it belief in the teeth of the evidence)!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Atheism
• Theism
• Does
• God
• Exist
• Debate
• Biola
• Critique
• commentary
• Non-theism
• agnosticism
• atheos
• logical
• equivalent
• filibuster
• definition

[onceuponayeti]

sorry i meant meaning not mean

[onceuponayeti]

@Birdieupon If, Atheism=true if Theism is false, then it would also be true that as theism tends to the improbable, atheism tends to the probable. As the (falsifiable) theistic arguments of history have been discredited by the advancement of scientific knowledge, it would be reasonable to say that theistic doctrines are scientifically improbable, mean (by your own logic) that the atheistic arguments are probable. Trust in the improbable when presented with the probable is unarguably irrational.

[onceuponayeti]

If atheism need only disprove theistic arguments to "prove" itself, then the battle is already lost for the theist as each argument presented by Craig in this debate is either circumstantial, fallacious misrepresentation of (fringe-ish) scientific principles or irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

[37thecrusader]

I give you evidence. Solomon a king and a judge did not need science to decide who the true mother of the child was. I think you all know the story.

[BronyEditor]

@OneKnuckleballinFool Because he's not a philosopher. Duh. LOL

[IfUrGivingIn]

@OneKnuckleballinFool You misinterpreted theism, atheism and agnosticism.

Dawkins is poor at philosophy.

[OneKnuckleballinFool]

@JCrownwell I have read philosophy textbooks, believe it or not. I've received A's in both of the philosophy classes I've taken at my University.

Why shouldn't I quote Dawkins? I'm interested to hear your opinion.

[junior8gr]

@IfUrGivingIn Come on! stop crying like a baby.

i conclude my argument cuz there is no sign of real supernatural activity in the world, that cant be demystified by science.

supernatural is bullshit.

and u cant prove me the opposite.

[IfUrGivingIn]

@junior8gr //For me there is NO SUPERNATURAL. Cuz Human's brain is able to create the most strange experience ever. Therefore SUPERNATURAL is just people's imagination...//

Worst argument ever, it's a complete non sequitur!

Seems like you conclude there is no supernatural BEFORE you consider the observation. Terrible...