/lit/ - Literature

>>16162466
Yes, some statements, such as your being a faggot, need no evidence to support them, being to all men of sound mind self-evident

What's wrong with it?

>>16162466
No, the "euphoric" pasta takes that prize.

>>16162490
it refutes itself. theres no evidence asserted to accept the claim that hitchens razor is true

>>16162497
No it doesn't, what it says is simply that without proof there is no reason to take a statement seriously.

>>16162524
What proof is there that I should take hitchens razor seriously?

>>16162524
Do you have proof to back up that statement?

>>16162466
why do people give these gay names to rhetorical devices
anon's razor: anyone who uses "hitchen's razor" can be cucked with impunity

>>16162497
But the razor isn't a fact claim, it's a procedural rule for treating fact claims. It does not apparently discuss the category to which it belongs.

>>16162532
you can prove that not doing so leads to absurdity(you have to accept literally any random statement without proof)

>>16162532
So if you think that Hitchen's razor is wrong, do you accept the principle that what is asserted without evidence should be accepted until you can find evidence against it?

>>16162534
What do you think is more reasonable, to dismiss a statement that is not backed by evidence, or to accept it until you manage to disprove it?

>>16162553
>>16162550
According to that logic, you can dismiss any statement that anyone says about personal experience because they dont have "proof" that it happened

>>16162590
But many personal experiences do create proof as they happen in the physical world. We would only be dismissing the unverifiable instances of things. Is there a problem with that?

>>16162466
if only we could see the footage of him converting on his deathbed

>>16162590
Personal experience does constitute proof in certain cases, eg. in the court.
Think of it this way: Hitchens' principle says that if there is no proof for X, you don't need to bring yourself proof against it to justify not believing in it. If we were to reject it, we would have to say that if there is no proof for X, we need to accept it unless we have evidence against it. Which of the two seems more plausible?

>>16162466
Hitchens' Razor is just another example of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because we don't know that x is, does not mean that we should assume that x is not.

>>16162633
The razor doesnt say "x is not," it says "x may as well not be, for all we know," which is what you're saying.

>>16162633
But why should we assume x is?Just because someone wants you to?

>>16162633
You're confusing evidence with solid proof. We may not "know" that X is but there may be some evidence that supports X, while not proving X. If X has some evidence, it would take more compelling evidence of "not X" to dismiss X... but if there is no evidence for or against X, then dismissing X is equally valid as asserting X.

>>16162532
evidence based per deduction of brainlets like you is evidence enough

>>16162493
That didn't come out of atheism.

>>16162633
You are clinically retarded.

JUST

>>16162662
>>16162663
>>16162679
But that's the problem with Hitchens entire reasoning; it only works if you are dunking on hillbillies. Nobody on the theist side of the debate is operating without evidence, Hitchens simply dismisses that evidence out of hand.

Broadly speaking, it renders Hitchens Razor moot. Hitchens should have just stated what he thought; which was that the evidence in favour of the Christian God is extremely poor. His Razor is stupid because he says that there is no evidence at all for God, when in fact he means that there is no evidence that he accepts. So it's an asinine opinion and a useless logical Razor, since nobody asserts things without evidence anyway.

>>16162819
there's some interview from when he was almost dead where he's asked to reflect on drinking and the prospect of death, and the tl;dr of his answer was that he was basically horrified of it but there was nothing he could do at that point. pretty haunting

>>16162839
the Razor doesn't need to be applied to religion, it applies generally. And many religious people will in fact say there is no evidence, because they take it on faith.

>>16162466
Here, I've found a statement that is falsified by Hitchens' Razor;
>the laws of nature do not change with time, but describe all nature for all time.
I've asserted this, but there is no evidence for it, nor can evidence be produced in favour of it. Therefore I can dismiss it without evidence, even though it is a foundational premise of the scientific method.

>>16162878
>Many religious people will in fact say there is no evidence, because they take it on faith.
Just because they say that, does that mean you believe them? Obviously they just feel reluctant, or unable to expound on their beliefs for whatever reason, because they believe it is too subtle or they don't feel they will do their own beliefs justice. Any consistent Lockean empiricist cannot believe that any person can form an opinion in absence of evidence.

>>16162909
No, they really do take Faith seriously. There isn't secret evidence lurking behind it. The lack of evidence is a part of the deal.

>>16162466
So this is why insufferable bugmen keep saying "you got a source for that?"

>>16162466
Logical Positivism is pointless and diminishes your ability to have a conversation about anything.

>>16162497
Hahah you religious fucktard further prove how fucking braindead you are with this very reply. And you wonder why people can't take you seriously? Your logic is so poor. And I'm willing to be you are an amerimutt with an average education

>>16162909
I'm not saying all religious people see it that way, just that some do emphasize faith without evidence.

>>16162542
based

>>16162619
Which one has evidence?

>>16162590
Yes that's called anecdotal evidence and it means nothing you braindead amerifart. It's no wonder you believe in sky Fairies with your terrible logic and low IQ

>>16162590
>>16162532
This is your brain and america.

>>16162549
>But the razor isn't a fact claim
It is a claim though.

>>16162958
dont forget religion lol

>>16162963
Are you false flagging to make religioustards look even more like mouth-breathers or are you serious?

>>16162924
Disagree, if you accept Locke's thesis that people do not form ideas in the absence of experience, you must think that faith is a kind of experience all its own. A kind of evidence that Christians believe is accessible only to those whom God chooses to experience it, but which they nevertheless have insight into. In short, they are telling you that they have a specific kind of knowledge, and are unsure of whether it can be communicated.

Saying "faith" doesn't help you, since faith must be faith in something, which means that the word faith invokes the reality of secret evidence.

>>16162553
False dichotomy. Not dismissing does not imply accepting.

>>16162972
I'm not false flagging. It's an epistemological claim about the nature of truth.

i thought hitchens razor was pretty cringe, kinda like naming not pointing a gun at your head "anon's gun safety mantra"
seeing the christcucks ITT actually try to argue with it has made me realize some people are actually braindead enough to need quipisms like this

>>16162466
It's fine but whenever he was faced with a philosophic argument for god he just waved it off as nothing. Still not as bad as Dawkins

>>16162939
Don't worry I kept that in mind, I am a theist myself, but however you slice it I'm also an empiricist, and as a result Hitchens Razor offends me not so much because it's anti-religious, but because it's conflating lack of evidence with Hitchens real opinion which is that the evidence for Christianity is poor. So it's basically just a meme answer that's sufficient for brainlet teens who really associate atheism with telling dad and mom to fuck off.

>>16162951
Anecdotal evidence IS evidence. Whether the evidence is good or not is a different question but it cant simply be waved off as 'nothing'

>>16162963
It's a logic, or a procedural rule, for dealing with fact claims. It doesn't assert anything about phenomena.

>>16163095
>It doesn't assert anything about phenomena.
It asserts that claims can be dismissed under certain criteria. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

>>16163338
No, it just looks that way to you because the level of abstraction is too much for your IQ.

>>16163350
do you have any evidevnce for that assertion?

>>16163357
Yes.

>>16163357
You not accepting the assertion is unironically evidence for the assertion

>>16162497
Idiot.

>>16163653
No it isnt. If we accept the assertion is true than by its own merit it can be dismissed.

>>16162497
On the contrary, if you dismiss Razor you should also dismiss God. (if you accept Razor then you should also dismiss God).
t. agnostic

>>16162598
We have no evidence, at all, of any internal experiences of any person but ourselves. Should we, then, default to solipsism?

>>16162619
He was so based

>>16162839
>Nobody on the theist side of the debate is operating without evidence

Lol ok...

>>16162497
>what are heuristics
Religious retard

>>16164730
>>16163872
>>16162938
Look at all these triggered redditors. You hate to see atheism BTFO'd .

>>16164770
I don’t even think Hitchens’ razor is a good heuristic, you fucking christtard. But unlike your uneducated ass, I do know what a heuristic is. Now go read about your cult leader for the millionth time and jerk off about how Jewsus will totally blow his gracious godload in between your squeaky bumbum to consummate your divine gay marriage in the kingdom of heaven, and thus finally breaking your chains of virginity

>>16164792
Hahaha, so eternally butthurt. Wha was it like being filtered by Genesis?

>>16163095
And what evidence does an atheist have for the reliability of logical rules? Oh, none at all.

>>16164798
Which part, the part where god creates humans twice, or the part where he floods the planet to punish humanity for his fuckups?

Lol, imagine unironically building your entire life around horseshit like that. How embarrassing

>>16164823
Neither happens in Genesis so I can tell you got filtered.

>>16164792
Can you prove why heuristics are worth following
There's no evidence or foundation for it

>>16164845
You do know that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ is a heuristic, right?

>>16164863
Here we go with the atheist word-games.

>>16164863
Yes, logic is a language game with no actual truth value, welcome to the fifties, now can you stop pushing this retarded horseshit?

>>16162466
People can’t live by that axiom. Life is full of risks, and people generally just take shots in the dark and adjust as the world reacts to them.

>>16162924
This debate isn't complete without mentioning the physical experiences associated with religion. When christians talk about needing to keep faith when you're doubting, that's when they mean "believe something without evidence." That's how they address doubters, and I think that's distinct from how they talk about faith as their own personal body of evidence.
When they describe god revealing himself to them when they had sufficient faith, they're talking about the physical experience of religious (pardon the phrase) euphoria.
People really do experience a physical high paired with intense emotion in some church settings, and this is observed in a lot of religions. An experience like that is very strong evidence, but it's impossible to communicate a feeling like without heavily relying on the concept of faith.
God isn't real, of course, but people using faith as evidence aren't gullible in the traditional sense, they often have powerful and convincing experiences.

>>16164877
>>16164893
Both of you niggers are retarded. You can go either way as an axiom, but either way you have to make an assumption like the previous anon stated.

>>16162466

Give me evidence that raping babies is bad.

Faith is just rhetoric.

>>16163021
Fucking episcopals.

I, professionally, treat atheists and those who do not believe in God in the same manner as women; that is, their achievements elicit the same response as my pet dog returning a thrown ball - simply adorable.

How could the proclamation of oneself as erudite whilst either possessing bias necessary for immediate and automatic refutation of thousands of year of philosophical thought or simply lacking the intellect to derive that same conclusion yourself be anything other than adorable?

>>16165412
No such thing as "bad"

>>16164596
Well, yes.
There is no answer to solipsism fundamentally.

>>16165904
ok PoMo Homo

>>16162619
The bible it's a testimony of 4 people about jesus christ and his miracles. By your logic, we can accept the claim that god is real because we have proof.
> Inb4 the bible is a hoax
Prove it.

>>16165684
Utterly based

>>16165904

So Hitchens is, I assume, logically consistent and agrees with you?

>>16162490
Doesn't account for axioms

>>16164596
Of course. It doesn't make any difference, either.

>>16162497
Hitchens btfo

>>16162466
Yes, that's why God owned him with cancer

>>16163021
That pastor even looks like a pedophile

>>16165684
That’s funny, I do the same thing with monotheists, only I don’t compare them to women, but children

>>16162497
If you insist that, you must also dismiss god on the same terms.

If you accept the unuunction, then you must dismiss god on its terms.

Hitchens utterly btfoed religion yet again.

>>16162565
The latter so long as there are a plurality of such statements.

>>16166379
What?
Sometimes it's like pulling teeth getting answers out of anons.

>>16163653
So its a Kafkatrap?

>>16162497
This.
Where is that famous razor? I want to see it by myself.

>>16162466
>can
Things that can be asserted without evidence can also be used as evidence that OP is a faggot, they can also be accepted without evidence.
>If my statement sounds poetic and has some kind of symmetry about it then people will promulgate it without thinking.