/lit/ - Literature

No, women really aren't funny.

>>22562032
An enemy that numbers time in millennia with a cultural basis that goes back to preliterate man and symbolism rooted in primordial hominids appears!
>[(You)--Choose your fighter]!
a) Richard Dawkins: rat-faced evolutionary biologist who popularized the word meme (secret weapon: Scientism; weakness: Kafka)
b) Sam Harris: midwit who solved the problem of induction (secret weapon: meditation; weakness: complex thought)
c) Christopher Hitchens: reformed commie/former fag with great talent for rhetoric (secret weapon: alcoholic snark (aka Hitchslap); weakness: Neoconservatism)
d) Daniel Dennett: Saturday morning philosopher (secret weapon: midwit empowerment (aka Reddit); weakness: phenomenology)
>(You): WEAPONIZED CONDESCENTION! ALL FOUR HORSEMEN, I CHOOSE (You)s!
*****[Fight!]*****
>(You) choose: YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS, DO YOU?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy isn't 4 and is unimpressed you don't believe in Santa. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: WHY DON'T YOU WORSHIP ZEUS?!
[Counter attack: nuance. Even myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: SCIENCE THOUGH!
[Counter attack: nuance. Enemy brings up the history of science and its complex relationship and continuing interplay with religion. Attack is ineffective.]
>(You) choose: FEDORA TIP!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>(You) choose: NO YOU!
[Counter attack: enemy is laughing.]
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>[(You) have fainted.]

>>22562032
Behold his legacy.

>>22562032
Hitchens is an example of a moderately intelligent person who never got over a petty fixation and it turned into a permanent stick up his ass. Just look at him, he's obsessed. This obsessive need eventually proved too much when The Passion of the Christ came out. He turned into a tantrum throwing child.

>>22562032

The statement ‘what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’ has been asserted without eveidence and so we must dismiss it.

Also Euclid etc

>>22562052
You know who else threw a tantrum when it came out? Jews

>>22562032
Yeah, a long time ago.

>>22562049
>Maus
>dictionary for demons
>word smart
>multiple creased Stephen king novels
>unopened secondary source on Nietzsche
>Star Trek box set
>Enders game
>watchmen

Oof

>>22562032
His basic claims are logically irrefutable because they take clear premises and take them to fairly obvious conclusions.

The only real argument you can make in such a case is to deny his premises, which is not a refutation by definition, merely a rejection. Ironically enough by choosing to believe in a particular theology and not Hitchens' you are doing the exact same thing you would accuse him of doing.

>>22562118
>can be
>must be
sneaky kike

>>22562140
He also has books on how to win arguments and more than one copy of The God Delusion, lol.

>>22562118
>Also Euclid etc
What of Euclid? Retard faggots on /lit/ could only grok high school math and therefore pretend the entire field post Newton & Leibniz doesn't exist? There was a huge crisis in math and logic in the early 1900s precisely because the ancients were lazy shitters who never bothered to actually think about how they treat the premises of their reasoning in any systematic way.

>>22562118
>internet/social media becomes a widespread thing
>first fad is a version of atheism that trains retards that being condescending is a substitute for thoughtfulness
>gives birth to the "OWNS/DESTROYS" genre by which morons live vicariously through the "intellects" of others
>promotes shit like Scientism and encourages people to think their worldview can be based on fact/logic alone with 0 subjectivity (i.e. anyone disagreeing with you is automatically dumb because facts/logic are simple)
He wrecked a generation and helped close the door on the internet being the modern equivalent of a library/salon. Seriously, we have no idea just how much he and his ilk helped ruin.

>>22562127
Hitchens through a tantrum because he WAS a Jew.

>>22562222
>2222

>>22562041
>accuses atheists of strawmanning
>strawmans atheists

like clockwork

>>22562228
>through
Because he was *through* with the jewish religion?
Speaking of tantrums

>>22562032
Your words reveal to me what makes a man of learning!
What you can't touch, for you is leagues away,
what you can't grasp does not exist at all,
what you can't count, you don't believe is true
what you can't weigh is of no weight to you,
and what you do not coin, you think of no account.

>>22562049
You clearly know nothing about Hitchens if you think banana man there is his legacy

>>22562052
kek, he spent the vast majority of his career on geopolitics and literal journalism by traveling to war torn countries, but of course midwits only became aware of him when he targeted religion.

>>22562118
So you adopt it to dismiss it? Which means you admit it's worth adopting?

>>22562320
>[pasta points out final fedora tippers predictable "no you"]
>NO YOU
Lol, thanks for demonstrating.

>>22563503
>>22562222

>>22562222
He is a very high power retard
Can’t believe he got traction at all

>>22563514
>symbolism rooted in primordial hominids
>Myth is meaningful in a way not reducible to materialism
Somebody actually unironically wrote this to defend their belief in a father figure in the sky who both loves them and threatens them with eternal punishment if they don't submit to the "heavenly father". The final irony is that such thinking reduces to psychological projection, which has material roots lol

>>22563517
"Scientism" isn't a word. Seethe more. I think the best part is that he made idiots like you have to concede that your worldview is illogical and not based on facts, only your subjective feelings. It's not about "facts and logic being simple", it's about mutually exclusive faith traditions who all use the same basis for their claims, proving that such a basis is unreliable for seeking the truth.

>>22563509
>>22562174
It’s self refuting gentlemen so there is no need to go further and if you felt the need to please consider Kant or many others throughout history

>>22562188
I personally dominated the math section of the MCAT (I only mention it to assure you I have proven mathematical talent relative to the people with 3.8 GPAs getting in to med school). Also I have read Russell and Frege and while I do very much enjoy that discussion let’s not pretend you and I are extremely rare in even knowing about Frege.
Amazing gaytheist and Hitchens never realized how Euclid and geometry was set up. Hitchens was a drunk and a chain smoker with a nice vocabulary who pretended socialism made him an intellectual.

>>22563556
The problem is that if you don't dismiss things which have no evidence, you must allow all claims that can't be conclusively refuted, which would mean you have to allow mutually conflicting claims that have no evidence for or against except that they conflict with each other. The logical conclusion is to dismiss things that have no evidence as being conjecture at best.

>>22563574
Suppose I have found a Dino fossil in France Bavaria Italy and Austria. But when I checked in Switzerland volcanic activity has destroyed all the fossil record.

Now I have no evidence =[ so I can’t consider the possibility of my dinosaur roaming the Helvetic area.

Hitchens is foolishly attempting to rephrase the idea of falsification which was forced onto the world by Karl Popper. But Popper himself would have told you it’s only useful for demarcation between science and non science.

Further you have for realize falsification is itself a reaction to verificafionism.

Falsification says something is only scientific if it can be tested to be proven false.

Verificationism is more ambitious and further reaching. It says something is only meaningful if can be tested for truth or falsity.

Hitchens here is of course an uneducated sophist and professional provacatuer. The nuance is lost on him.

Popper was aware that falsification isn’t a falsifiable theory. But it’s also nothing more than a criterion of determining what is scientific or not.

To use the criteria is to assert something (falsification) that has no evidence at all.
Hitchens only knew a YouTube level about science so the actual meaning of these ideas is lost on him.

He wasn’t interested in truth anyway, he was interested in controversy and selling books and being invited on tv for controversial interviews. So for him God isn’t falsifiable is very fun.

But he sharts out words from his cancer filled lungs and what comes out is a splatter of non sense.
If there is no evidence for it then I can dismiss it without evidence?
There’s no evidence Caesar was stabbed by 5 senators. Dismiss that?
There’s no evidence I don’t have cancer right now. There’s no evidence I do have cancer right now.

It’s non sense word barf from a faggit who didn’t understand anything he was talking about except that he would be able to attack a popular demographic

>>22562351
Doesn’t really take the Jew out of the Jew. Some people (and I emphasize *some* since to declare that *all* would be a massive blanket statement and there are people who actually know how to master and craft their individual will) are just predisposed genetically to act and think a certain way regardless if they throw off their cultural yoke. Hitchens is no different. His kind also, especially if they’re British as well tend to be sectarian Trotskyist scum on top of it (like Fisher, et al)

>>22563553
>le sky daddy
>no you
Every time.

>>22563541
>le sky daddy
>no you
Every time.

>>22563553
>Scientism isn't a word.
It is.
>Seethe more.
Lol.
>your worldview is illogical and not based on facts, only your subjective feelings
Says the guy imagining he's making a stranger on the internet angry, lol.
>it's about mutually exclusive faith traditions who all use the same basis for their claims
Just because you're an idiot who can't work it out doesn't mean others can't.
>proving that such a basis is unreliable for seeking the truth
>such a basis is unreliable for seeking the truth
Nope, sorry.

>>22562032
He asserted that statement without evidence, therefore I can dismiss it without evidence by his logic. What a self-refuting retard.

>>22562041
>hitchslap
fucking kek

>>22563675
Bro, you literally have one pet argument that defines every single conversation you ever have on here. I know it's you by your reference to Karl Popper, the use of the word "demarcation" and I haven't even read the rest but I'm willing to bet you reference Kuhn at some point. You are as stagnant as a mud puddle and about as deep.

>>22562041
>immediately with the fedora pic cope post
Kek. Didn’t read, seethe more.

>>22562032
I would take them more seriously if they weren't religiously attached to the big bang, which has btfoed so hard by james webb. And yet they're scrambling and coping as hard as any catholic when talking about supremacy to save that dead theory.

>>22564020
“All that said, the James Webb Space Telescope has found some unusual things. Most significantly, it has found more galaxies and more distant galaxies than there should be, and that could lead to some revolutionary changes in our standard model. Our current understanding is that after the big bang the universe went through a period known as the dark ages. During this period the first light of the cosmos had faded, and the first stars and galaxies hadn’t yet formed. Webb is so sensitive it can see some of the youngest galaxies that formed just after the dark ages. We would expect those young galaxies to be less numerous and less developed than later galaxies. But the Webb observations have found very redshifted, very young galaxies that are both common and surprisingly mature.

It’s the kind of puzzling and unexpected data astronomers were hoping for. It’s why we wanted to build the Webb telescope in the first place. And it tells us that while the big bang model isn’t wrong, some of our assumptions about it might be.”
Isn't this embarrassing for you? Why you you morons type easily googled things that are quite obviously not true? Maybe because you dislike Catholics and science and thusly disavow it in your insect filled mind?

Hitchens hatred for religion really makes him look like an idiot when it comes to U.S foreign policy. He ends up looking like a total warhawk

>>22562320
>>22564019
Kill yourselves monkey faggots

>>22564171
yea he fell right into the bush neocon shit just to flex on muzzies

>>22562032
By shilling Iraq WMDs nonsense he refuted himself, no?

>>22562049
I'd rather hang out with this guy than with any Christian who posts on /lit/ 100% guaranteed

>>22562032
His statement is asserted without evidence, so it can dismissed without it.

>>22562032
I need evidence for the evidence for the evidence of the evidence

>>22562032
Nope - that's why the miracles of Jesus Christ are real and so are the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.

>>22564171
He was employed by Jews and Zionist’s and was obligated to support the Zionist war. It’s really fucking obvious.

Kind of like JP working for the daily wire.

>>22564012
Falsification is the solution to the problem of Demarcation. You obviously will see that word of falsification is being discussed because that’s what it’s existence is for.

I havnt posted about Popper before you dipshit, you think everytime you misunderstand popper the people correcting you are really just one guy trolling you?

I could reference Kuhn but I didn’t and have not done so in the past.

You’re just ad hom at this point. Sad midwit

>>22565095
>you think everytime you misunderstand popper the people correcting you are really just one guy
I've seen this guy before and yeah he really does. Once there were about three anons correcting him on Popper and he confused us as one person then started raging about Thomas Kuhn. Whoever that original anon or anons was really got in his head.

>>22562032
What about the law of non-contradiction?

>>22562032
>evidence
>well, who decides what is proper evidence? Hah, me of course!

>>22563675
testimonial evidence is a form of evidence though

>>22562041
lol thank you

>>22565816
I agree, and I also recognzie there is testimonial evidence for things like the resurrection of Christ. so hitchens little ‘gotcha’ was really a very poor rephrasing of popper that does no work for him

>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...
>...except for this statement, of course

>>22564973
>I'd rather hang out with this guy than with any Christian who posts on /lit/ 100% guaranteed
You do you, anon. You do you.

>>22562032
Well ...

1. Depends what you mean by evidence

2. An assertion is a fact in itself and carries with itself its own evidence in the form of the propositions it puts forward

>>22562169
Yes but Moses split the sea 4K+ years ago while Hitchens sat at a computer typing useless words that will be forgotten in less than 50 years. He has even less of a legacy than Ayn Rand. At least she goes down in history as a laughing stock, being a hypocritical welfare collecting, Zionist Objectivist. What is Hitchens remembered for? Being angry at god? Cool, join the line bucko. There are only millions of other philosophers and texts written doing the same thing. Awesome job using your deductive human based logic to argue against people that literally believe in a time and space invariant being. He has done nothing to actually advance society like real scientists or actual thinkers. His "work" (rants) will be forgotten because unlike Darwin, no one can use it to build off of to better our collectiveness understanding of things. Angry white kids that hate their Christian parents and want to make sense of their raging hormones are the reason he even had a platform to begin with, and when our extreme surplus in society runs dry and the pointless existentialism that Whites are afflicted with is replaced with a need to stop pondering unproductive thoughts and survive, Hitchens' name will be forever dead.

Thankfully he died painfully at a relatively young age so the legacy can disappear faster. These atheist fags who are always coincidentally Jews can not drop fast enough. Funny how that works huh? Hate on every other religion and culture but still be proud of your own and pull out the anti-semite card on people who criticize it. lol. lmao.

>>22562041
Very entertaining. Good post ty.

>>22562032
Got sodomized by this pajeet right here: https://youtu.be/B4_c0QRrly4?si=pgG-Klnatrkhs_KQ
Why he decided to defend this dunce-like position, I will never understand.

>>22564973
Im sure you do because you both have an affinity for sticking things up you colon

>>22562032
I'd have to see some evidence for this to be true

>>22562032
The problem is that he ignores evidence he doesn't like the straightforward inference from, like NDEs.

And NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique. Not even the skepticism of Hitchens or his fans.

>>22567325
this ignores
>everyone who has an NDE and doesn't see a specifically religious experience, only a generally positive one
>different people seeing different things
>the possibility that NDEs simply show beautiful things that their experiencers ascribe their own religious significance to after the fact
>the uncontested reality that NDEs are caused by brain chemistry

>>22564973
based

>>22567398
That gets copy pastaed in like a hundred threads a day. Don't expect any engagement, it's probably just an advertisement bot or something.

>>22564973
>>22567567
You guys must really like bananas.

No he hasn't in fact no one has ever been refuted actually except the NT. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Offering himself in front of men even though he wasn't ready.

>>22563899
Low IQ take. It's not self-refuting. By dismissing his statement you provide evidence to its validity, thus proving him right.

>>22567325
Can an atheist explain what prevents an atheist from disposing the dead body of a loved one [let's say his/her father] in a landfill or feeding him/her to the pigs?
What does the dead body of a beloved father represent to an atheist? It's not father anymore, and if there is no afterlife then why bother with any kind ceremony or grave?

>>22567771
lots of people perform rituals who you would consider to be atheist insofar as they believe in false gods

>>22567709
The Christian hivemind that scours this place precisely skips over this post because they have no retort, as if to say, "What is this fool talking about.." , aka Schizoid. There is indeed a grand conspiracy about the body of Jesus and if he was stoned then it would not have been the eagle holding back tears. I say we tear his clips and fold back his hands returning to the sender he cameth.

>>22567780
>rituals have meaning
You're so close.

>>22567599
Or really dislike the schizo Christcuck posters on this board

>>22567837
Eagle holding back tears, what do I mean? Ever been to a freemason club? No? The official answer is that the eagle is the all-seeing eye, which in Ancient Vedic math is triangle with a circle. The antithesis of the All-seeing Triangle is the Jewish star, upside down triangle. Well mosby it all has to relate to the dove.
>>22567771
Atheism must either be for schizos, for druggies, for edgy atheists, for people who grew up without a bible, for people who God neglected to point towards the Bible and keeping it, for people who can't make a connection, for underage bannerss.

>>22567771
Attachment bonds retain their power even when the one you are attached to has passed away. Therefore strong emotions towards the person are present towards their body after death. Did you think this was some sort of gotcha?

>>22567878
Some people don't need ancient fairy tales about a sky daddy in their lives. Religious people literally talk to a disembodied spirit, and you think atheists are the schizos?

>>22567879
>even when the one you are attached to has passed away
Based on which universal atheist principle?
If you reject and discard all metaphysical values, what remains is dead matter.
Objectively speaking, the once beloved father of an atheist is no different than a booger to the atheist.
Can you refute this beyond the "feelings" argument?
Don't atheists believe we are amoebas with the capacity of perception and judgement?

>>22567918
Our perception and feelings are rooted in our biology. What do you think even qualifies as a "universal atheist principle"? The only defining feature of an atheist is "not believing in any god". You are creating a strawman if you think atheists discount feelings as important to life.

>>22562032
nope, christcucks are mentally ill

>>22567887
are you on here every day - i see your mental illness wojacks with the same filename all the time
i'm an atheist and you are precisely the type of person who gives us the bad name

>>22562032
several times over.
as with all of new age atheism, it's weaponized ignorance.
all the arguments are hidden gotchas that fall flat if you can rebuke them properly.

>>22568003
hitch was the rare media pundit who usually argued in good faith
though he was wrong many times, it's still uncommon

>>22568003
Absolutely zero atheist arguments have ever been rebuked. Keep living in your delusional world

>>22562032
Read Aristotle on the law of non contradiction or prove this law without making use of it.
if you hang on to your teenage dream atheist fella, dismiss the law of non-contradiction "without any evidence" and go to the place where atheists go to when they are horny. (But actually don't and think about your life for a while.)

>>22562032
There's no evidence for atheism
>muh burden of proof
Show me the evidence for burden of proof

>>22568281
If you require zero evidence to believe a claim, then to be consistent, you must believe in all claims that have no evidence, even conflicting claims, which would be literal madness and impossible. Therefore, you are actually just selective in which claims you require evidence for, making you dishonest.

>>22567958
Atheism isn't a club, there is no "us" just because we both don't believe in the ridiculous claims of religions. You really have internalized tribalistic thinking, haven't you?

>>22568362
i only said I was atheist so you wouldn't have an autism attack and think i was criticizing you for being atheist, you fucking moron
you're mentally ill and you have ugly and stupid memes
:)

>>22568053
Almost all of them have, you're just too ignorant of philosophy to notice what qualifies as an argument for atheism (or against theism) and why. Alternatively, history.

Let's look:
>Jesus mythicism
Not even atheist scholars will hold to this one anymore.
>Logical empiricism/positivism
Amazingly, New Atheists still use it without understanding it. It's an incredulous argument. "Only empirically verifiable statements/claims are true." God is not empirically verifiable, and so on. The verification principle. This is especially how tards like Dillahinty and Hitchens argue. One problem: is the verification principle empirically verifiable? Principally no. Whoops, there goes logical positivism. Dumbest philosophical movement in history.
Most New Atheists are ignorant people, but if you were to lay out their philosophical views, they're often logical positivists of some form, usually empirical. That's all "scientism" is, as a position.
>The Problem of Evil
Refuted for a thousand years minimum. To be fair, the Bayesian version hasn't been around so long, so it's hard to say such things with certainty, but I'd say it's been refuted as well.

There's a reason that the New Atheists have taken a purely rhetorical approach and just ignore the entire canon of western history and philosophy (including the history of science and mathematics). As in, focusing on the burden of proof, while avoiding proving their numerous unfounded philosophical claims which they're immune from proving.
Like: saying there is no God because there is no evidence for God. But what evidence do they have there is no evidence? "Oh, can't prove a universal negative." First, you can prove universal negatives. Second, under their own criterion, saying there is no evidence requires evidence, otherwise the claims is false (in their principle). Third, their definition of evidence is pure retardation. These thinkers often fail to distinguish between evidence for a thing, and the thing itself. Nor can they see how even false claims can have lots of evidence. Otherwise, we would never believe in false things. There is evidence for Ptolemaic Geocentrism, and for a flat earth, and for smoking being healthy for the respiratory system. It's possible for people to believe in false things precisely because evidences by themselves cannot dictate ultimate truth.
Often, New Atheists will simply make a rhetorical trick of reclassifying what constitutes evidence.
Sophisticated thinkers like WVO Quine understood these issues. Now, he and many others were not technically arguing about theism, but fundamentally, it goes back to the same philosophical problems of epistemology.
No wonder, even more atheists like Lawrence Krauss (originator of Epstein Island Realism), just discard philosophy altogether. "Science has replaced it!" One problem: his trashy atheist books are not scientific, regardless of whether that's his day job. They're principally not the same thing, it's just a canard.

>>22568388
Based post. Gaytheists are cretins and midwits.

>>22568388

>>22568376
You are beyond cringe. Stop posting.

>>22568388
>The only argument against atheism is presuppositionalism
Embarrassing. Basically "no worldview can be verified, so my fairy tale sky daddy is real".

>>22568418
Shut the fuck up, autismo. You have a shit tier collection of memes and are certainly mentally ill.

>>22568388
>Like: saying there is no God because there is no evidence for God.
kek, you don't even understand the position of New Atheists. The dominant position (espoused by Dilihunty, for example) is that there is no good reason to believe any god exists. That is why the burden of proof argument is valid, everyone has a threshold of proof to believe something, and it is up to a person advancing a claim to meet that threshold to convince anyone. Everything else is waffling ad hoc-ery to justify pet beliefs which are almost always beliefs indoctrinated into the person when they were a child or which they have a deep psychological need to defend (see Freud's "The Future of an Illusion").

>>22568421
I got this one just for you :)

>>22568443
stupid and mentally ill newfags post-2016 tourists like (You) always pick the dumbest and ugliest wojaks kek

>>22568436
Holy midwit.
>The dominant position is that there is no good reason to believe any god exists
>everyone has a threshold of proof to believe something, and it is up to a person advancing a claim to meet that threshold to convince anyone
No """good""" reason. Threshold to """convince""" someone.
> Everything else is waffling ad hoc-ery to justify pet beliefs
No, the only example of waffling ad hoc claims is by using highly subjective psychological states in lieu of actual arguments.
>there is no good reason...
Is there a good reason to believe this statement? None is provided. By it's own implied standard, it's fallacious.
>le threshold
So everyone has their own subjective psychological threshold, but only yours may reach into absolute truth and prove everyone else's wrong?
>pet beliefs which are almost always beliefs indoctrinated into the person when they were a child or which they have a deep psychological need to defend
How do you lack self-awareness to see that all of this applies to your own poorly defended beliefs, which are based on ambiguous and highly subjective ideas, like "convincing" and "good" reasons (which a priori exclude reasoning you don't like)?

>>22568453
Of course it's the dumbest and ugliest, it represents you!

>>22568520
glad you concede you post retarded, dumb, and ugly memes, just as i originally said, you newfag post-election tourist AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>22568515
Either you require evidence to believe a claim or you do not require evidence to believe a claim. One of these is absurd and leads to believing in mutually contradictory things. You are only pretending it's as viable as the other because your presuppositional argument requires it. You're acting as if A =/= A could ever be a true statement. Even you must realize you're being dishonest with this line of arguing.

>>22568524
Lurk more faggot, you're embarrassing yourself

>>22568535
Oh no, the newfag post-election tourist is getting mad and throws out the
>n-no u!
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

glad you conceded you post retarded, dumb, and ugly memes, just as i originally said, you newfag post-election tourist AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>22562032
Watch the John Lenox debate which he lost according to an audience poll, and me. Ironically he's at his best as a preacher, making moralizing arguments and slamming his fist about some injustice he thinks is caused by religion.

>>22568537
You are posting reddit tier cringe

>>22568533
This just shows how little you and most new atheists pay attention to lines of argumentation, or even your own thinking.

Firstly, you assume that my (or a broader theist) position is predicated on "no evidence." Nobody actually believes something on no evidence, especially when you start citing ambiguous subjective thresholds. As stated, even false ideas have evidences, which is why philosophy or science is possible as a methodology, because we do not have immediate access to reality as-is.
You might think the evidence is bad, like if an Evangelical preacher pulls out a Bible and says, "this is my evidence." Very well, but it is a form of evidence even in your own definition. The point is we always require a priori models and presuppositions for interpreting evidence.
Secondly, you don't seem to understand, based on the original posts, that there are different kinds of evidences and not everything is proven in the same way (hence the failure of logical empiricism). The way Euclid proves his theorems or that Galileo proves an astronomical model are not the same. New Atheists make ad hoc standards that deny entire forms of proof and argumentation, while still using those forms unknowingly (philosophy, rhetoric, etc.).
Thirdly, your own dichotomy is a violation of the idea that we each have subjective thresholds for evidences. If everyone has a threshold of belief, then everyone has an a prior presumption to accept evidence. Everyone accepts things which indicate something is true.
The idea that your opponent asserts they can believe things without evidence is just a canard.

>>22562032
Notice how this simple statment still makes christfags seethe to this day. They apply this shit to their daily life ex. Santa, aliens and any other outlandish claim but when it comes to their faith they suddenly start turning to semantics and smug replies. It really is funny if it wasnt so sad

>>22568568
>oh, so you refuted my argument?
>LOL you're just seething bro. Seethe

>>22568533
>>22568559
Fedoras BTFO.

there's a bit more to hitchens than this, he's not a complete hack. you might as well all be talking about bill maher, who pretty much is.

>>22568542
>conceding
you got btfo lil guy

>>22568576
>using retard logic
>wtf bro I btfo you
A simple unrelated question. How old is the earth?

>>22568584
Do you think it's 2007, you swampass neckbeard? Go back to watching the Amazing Atheist and Thunderfoot.

>>22568588
>A simple unrelated question. How old is the earth?
>Do you think it's 2007, you swampass neckbeard? Go back to watching the Amazing Atheist and Thunderfoot.
checked and keked

>>22568581
cont.

i'll put it this way, i can't imagine they'd ever give hitchens his own tv show, which means he probably wasn't all bad.

>>22568588
>Goes on a rant instead of answering the question
You really are the other side of the coin. The sames as troons when you ask them to define what is a woman. Good lucl bro you deserve each other

>>22568593

i'm too tired to make an intelligent comment on hitchens right now though.

>>22568559
Okay, so now you've retreated to the position that if anything is asserted without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence? So you actually agree with Hitchens' point! You just wish to claim that religious people do put forward evidence (I'd love to hear your definition of faith just as a side note.) You speak out of both sides of your mouth, you want to accuse Hitchens' razor of not having evidence, while also claiming that everyone always has some kind of evidence for their claims. Which is it? You contradict yourself, which isn't too surprising since your mechanism for rooting out false beliefs seems to be near non-existent leading to an accumulation of conflicting ideas that you spout, one after the other, with no self awareness that you are contradicting yourself. It's as if someone said a belief you hold has no evidence for it, so you just parrot the line of "Oh yeah? Well, your desire for evidence has no evidence for it!" It's literally school yard 6 year old arguing.

>>22568580
>(You)

>>22568625

Whats even the ultimate evolution of this argument? After all the other arguments based in observable reality are consumed.
>you cant prove god doesnt exists
>you can prove reality is real
Any other?

>>22568627

>>22568641
>Abrahamic God mixed with Zeus
you're an idiot
let me guess: Muttmerican, trailer park, never gone out of the country. How many of those apply to (You)?

>>22568633
The real interesting part is how unique any particular religious person thinks their faith is. As if their defense of a set of stories is any different than any other religious adherent of any other religion. The anthropology is more interesting than the content of any argument adduced for belief in a supernatural being that thinks about you or listens when you direct words at it. At bedrock, the religious only have recourse to presuppositionalism, the idea that since first principals need to be established, inventing "God" is just as good as, say, the basic principals of logic. It's actually embarrassing on its merits, but the tribal fervor is always interesting.

>>22568646
Zero, kek, do you only operate on cliches and stereotypes?

>>22568658
>inventing "God"
my fellow sir.... greetings

>>22568660
>that rapid of a response
Sure thing. What's your story, then? Pensioner Bonger? You have the distinct tone of a proletarian retard from an Anglo country

>>22568621
>you want to accuse Hitchens' razor of not having evidence
The problem is that it's an incoherent proposition when used by New Atheists.
>You speak out of both sides of your mouth, you want to accuse Hitchens' razor of not having evidence, while also claiming that everyone always has some kind of evidence for their claims. Which is it?
You confuse different counter-arguments, and I think you might be conflating. Propositions can be proven false in different ways.

If we take the verification principle (as you call, """Hitchen's Razor,""" which is in reality not exactly same thing), it does not meet its own epistemological criterion, ergo is self-defeating. One would need to make an arbitrary exception: "Only statements which are empirically verifiable are true, except for this statement," but this just moves the ball further back, and we run into the same problems. Anyone with a basic education in philosophy is aware of this problem, which is why logical positivism fell out of favor.
You confuse showing the verification principle as fallacious under its own pretenses (by drawing out a logical contradiction), as me accepting it as true. Bizarre.
We could apply this reasoning to ""Hitchen's Razor,"" if we accept, for sake of argument, how Hitchens or a New Atheist uses the word evidence.

The second counter-argument has to do with what actually constitutes evidence, because the New Atheists frequently a priori exclude things as constituting evidence.
This is a problem of ambiguous definitions, and faulty ones of the word "evidence." I would see evidence as something which indicates a thing as true. "A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment." Presuppositions are important, because we rely on them for our own epistemology to interpret the world.

You frequently use a form of equivocation, for example:
>It's as if someone said a belief you hold has no evidence for it, so you just parrot the line of "Oh yeah? Well, your desire for evidence has no evidence for it!"
"I have a desire for evidence," is a different statement from, "This is not true because there is no evidence for it." And that latter idea is not identical to a verification principle, either.

>>22568646
>trailer park, never gone out of the country
Arent they religious? At least talk about liberal arts, human studies etc or something

>>22562032
Atheists are retards that wear fedoras because they think they look classy but in reality everyone thinks they look like incels.

Bush Jr. left office in 2009.
Christopher Hitchens died in 2011.
Elevatorgate was 2011 too.

Over a decade on from all this, I don't understand how New Atheists can still have such a stick up their ass. Nothing about them has changed, they talk all the exact same talking points they did back then. They remain this relic from the 2000s while eveyone else has moved on to other trifles.

>>22562032
What can be dismissed without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Hitchens didn't even read up on the basic skeptics' dilemma

>>22568658
Here we go.

>there are mutltiple religions so none are true!

>there are multiple theories…but mine is true!!!

Pretty amazing how badly atheism fails on 4chan vs Reddit.

>>22562049
Lot to be said of the physiology of an ideologies adherents.
>catholic and orthodox monks give up worldly goods entirely, no sex, no wealth, no fame
>atheists look like this and buy latest slop

>>22562032
...Well, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Including that assertion.

>>22562041
lmao

>>22563503
No, his legacy in literal terms is the UK being overrun by pakis. When you murder your own religion, another one comes to take its place. This is uniformly true in 100% of circumstances.

Since Atheism as one of its core sacraments mandates the ripping apart of unborn babies in the womb with pliers, it necessarily sterilizes its host civilization. As such, whereas I'm sure the IDEA was that a new generation of skeptical, atheistic ubermenschen would arise to create a new utopia of science and logic, that generation was instead slam-dunked into the abortion clinic dumpster, or ground up into stem cells and sold to Jews for facials.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2015/04/14/baby-foreskin-facial-boston-hydrafacial/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/3/aborted-fetus-cells-used-in-anti-aging-products/

So, having ground up their babies into cosmetic products, Atheists have no real future except to try and convince other rubes into converting and grinding up their babies into cosmetic products. Unfortunately, the hordes of 70 IQ brown people pouring over the borders are still more intelligent than the average Anglo, and so they simply do not convert, have 8 children, and now the Call to Prayer sounds daily across London. This is DIRECTLY the fault of Hitches, Dawkins, etc.

What they say is more or less irrelevant. What they did was murder their own culture, thus making room for a new, far more fanatic and extreme one to step in and confiscate the products of their civilizations' millennia of toil.

Their legacy is Islam, which is extremely funny. History will remember this as the most massive own-goal of all time.

>>22569448
What's your evidence for that assertion?

>>22569492
I'm a serious alcoholic, went to an expensive school, and talk quickly. I know what the word "Teleology" means and I can speak French. I once read Baudelaire and while I have never read nor understood Sartre I can quote his entire corpus verbatim. I also hate Proust.