Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hitchen's Razor

Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:54:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find it funny that atheists will spew that line, then not accept extraordinary evidence, like well-documented appearances of God. No. They want more mundane, more ordinary evidence which can be assessed scientifically. But of course that isn't extraordinary, so it can never prove God.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:53:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.

There is no evidence that this Universe is real. Therefore it's not!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 6:23:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles...

Therefore, they don't need logical proof. Your thread is a waste of computing power.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 6:59:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@ LogicalLunatic
Non-valid argument from ignorance.

At 8/27/2014 6:23:37 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles...

Therefore, they don't need logical proof. Your thread is a waste of computing power.

An axiom cannot disprove itself. A self-refuting sentence is impossible to make a rational statement, let alone an axiom or a principle. You believe in it because Hitchen believed in it because it provides an emotional crutch to stick to his beliefs.

Second of all, it fails the laws of logic, this is undeniable. But lets assume it doesn't:

Atheists cannot produce evidence that the theist positions are incorrect,
atheists cannot produce evidence that they can rationally deny the validity of the argument without showing why the argument is not valid (denying the burden of rebuttal),
atheists cannot produce evidence that there is no creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence that there cannot be a creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence to the claim that there is no evidence for theism.

Therefore, if we murder rationality by pretending that Hitchen's razor is true because of emotional need and because "we want to", atheism is dismissible.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 7:04:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 2:54:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I find it funny that atheists will spew that line, then not accept extraordinary evidence, like well-documented appearances of God. No. They want more mundane, more ordinary evidence which can be assessed scientifically. But of course that isn't extraordinary, so it can never prove God.

What are these well documented cases of appearances of god?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 7:06:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 7:04:02 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:54:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I find it funny that atheists will spew that line, then not accept extraordinary evidence, like well-documented appearances of God. No. They want more mundane, more ordinary evidence which can be assessed scientifically. But of course that isn't extraordinary, so it can never prove God.

What are these well documented cases of appearances of god?

Read the Bible.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 7:15:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 7:06:19 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:04:02 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:54:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I find it funny that atheists will spew that line, then not accept extraordinary evidence, like well-documented appearances of God. No. They want more mundane, more ordinary evidence which can be assessed scientifically. But of course that isn't extraordinary, so it can never prove God.

What are these well documented cases of appearances of god?

Read the Bible.

It is important to note that the bible is only a claim, it is not the evidence. Some one can say that hobbits interacted with humans based on a lord of the rings book or that magic exists.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 7:25:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 7:15:42 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:06:19 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:04:02 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:54:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I find it funny that atheists will spew that line, then not accept extraordinary evidence, like well-documented appearances of God. No. They want more mundane, more ordinary evidence which can be assessed scientifically. But of course that isn't extraordinary, so it can never prove God.

What are these well documented cases of appearances of god?

Read the Bible.

It is important to note that the bible is only a claim, it is not the evidence.

You're wrong on two counts

1) the Bible is not "a claim" it is multiple claims of revelation by God, compiled separately.
2) the Bible contains things of historical worth, like Paul's letters. That is historical evidence.

Some one can say that hobbits interacted with humans based on a lord of the rings book or that magic exists.

Considering the Lord of the Rings is obviously fictitious whereas claims in the Bible have been proven by archeological evidence, such as the Tel-Dan-Stele, that's a ridiculous comparison.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 7:36:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 7:25:49 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:15:42 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:06:19 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:04:02 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:54:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I find it funny that atheists will spew that line, then not accept extraordinary evidence, like well-documented appearances of God. No. They want more mundane, more ordinary evidence which can be assessed scientifically. But of course that isn't extraordinary, so it can never prove God.

What are these well documented cases of appearances of god?

Read the Bible.

It is important to note that the bible is only a claim, it is not the evidence.

You're wrong on two counts

1) the Bible is not "a claim" it is multiple claims of revelation by God, compiled separately.
2) the Bible contains things of historical worth, like Paul's letters. That is historical evidence.

http://youredamnedtohell.com...

Well, of course it would have events of historical worth, that does not mean everything in the bible is historical. Even biblical scholars back up this claim.

I'll give you a video link, if you request for it, where a biblical scholar says that not everything in the bible is historical.

Some one can say that hobbits interacted with humans based on a lord of the rings book or that magic exists.

Considering the Lord of the Rings is obviously fictitious whereas claims in the Bible have been proven by archeological evidence, such as the Tel-Dan-Stele, that's a ridiculous comparison.

In this case, the claim in the bible has been proven by archaeological evidence. But that does not mean Noah's ark happened, or Adam and eve. A population cannot start from 2 people. Inbreeding would happen and mutations would occur.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 7:54:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 7:25:49 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:15:42 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:06:19 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/27/2014 7:04:02 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:54:55 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I find it funny that atheists will spew that line, then not accept extraordinary evidence, like well-documented appearances of God. No. They want more mundane, more ordinary evidence which can be assessed scientifically. But of course that isn't extraordinary, so it can never prove God.

What are these well documented cases of appearances of god?

Read the Bible.

It is important to note that the bible is only a claim, it is not the evidence.

You're wrong on two counts

1) the Bible is not "a claim" it is multiple claims of revelation by God, compiled separately.

Yes, multiple claims are not evidence. You can have 100 people claim to have seen a goblin, but there is no evidence for it.

Just like people who claim to see ghosts and other supernatural beings in haunted houses. Tour guides get people worked up so when they hear a noise, or feel a breeze they cry ghost.

2) the Bible contains things of historical worth, like Paul's letters. That is historical evidence.


Some one can say that hobbits interacted with humans based on a lord of the rings book or that magic exists.

Considering the Lord of the Rings is obviously fictitious whereas claims in the Bible have been proven by archeological evidence, such as the Tel-Dan-Stele, that's a ridiculous comparison.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 2:52:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.

Except you take it to be true in order to use it to dismiss it, thereby admitting it IS true, because you just used it to dismiss itself. I, too, faced paradoxes in primary school. So you really cannot claim to have refuted it, because the only way you can is to use it, but if you use it, then it's no longer valid and therefore couldn't have used it... Blah blah blah.

Round it goes.

It's still valid for this reason. You haven't refuted it, just highlighted a paradox.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 4:34:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 2:52:13 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.


Except you take it to be true in order to use it to dismiss it, thereby admitting it IS true, because you just used it to dismiss itself. I, too, faced paradoxes in primary school. So you really cannot claim to have refuted it, because the only way you can is to use it, but if you use it, then it's no longer valid and therefore couldn't have used it... Blah blah blah.

Round it goes.

It's still valid for this reason. You haven't refuted it, just highlighted a paradox.

Internal non-coherence is self-evidently false, and can never be true. The statement is refuted not because it is true, it is refuted because it is false due to it's complete logical failure. I provided evidence of it's falseness (law of non-contradiction), not by using it's own claim.

A statement or philosophy is self-refuting when it does not meet its own standard or criteria for truthfulness or rational acceptability. So if you wanna believe that assertion that appeals to your emotions are equilivant to logical arguments and principles, and hold an anti-rationality position that believes the principles of logic are non-valid, then good day.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 5:08:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 4:34:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 2:52:13 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.


Except you take it to be true in order to use it to dismiss it, thereby admitting it IS true, because you just used it to dismiss itself. I, too, faced paradoxes in primary school. So you really cannot claim to have refuted it, because the only way you can is to use it, but if you use it, then it's no longer valid and therefore couldn't have used it... Blah blah blah.

Round it goes.

It's still valid for this reason. You haven't refuted it, just highlighted a paradox.

Internal non-coherence is self-evidently false, and can never be true. The statement is refuted not because it is true, it is refuted because it is false due to it's complete logical failure. I provided evidence of it's falseness (law of non-contradiction), not by using it's own claim.

A statement or philosophy is self-refuting when it does not meet its own standard or criteria for truthfulness or rational acceptability. So if you wanna believe that assertion that appeals to your emotions are equilivant to logical arguments and principles, and hold an anti-rationality position that believes the principles of logic are non-valid, then good day.

Allow me to clarify your position...you think we shouldn't dismiss things that are asserted without evidence? Ignore the Razor for a second, just...do you?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 5:24:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 5:08:08 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/28/2014 4:34:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 2:52:13 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.


Except you take it to be true in order to use it to dismiss it, thereby admitting it IS true, because you just used it to dismiss itself. I, too, faced paradoxes in primary school. So you really cannot claim to have refuted it, because the only way you can is to use it, but if you use it, then it's no longer valid and therefore couldn't have used it... Blah blah blah.

Round it goes.

It's still valid for this reason. You haven't refuted it, just highlighted a paradox.

Internal non-coherence is self-evidently false, and can never be true. The statement is refuted not because it is true, it is refuted because it is false due to it's complete logical failure. I provided evidence of it's falseness (law of non-contradiction), not by using it's own claim.

A statement or philosophy is self-refuting when it does not meet its own standard or criteria for truthfulness or rational acceptability. So if you wanna believe that assertion that appeals to your emotions are equilivant to logical arguments and principles, and hold an anti-rationality position that believes the principles of logic are non-valid, then good day.

Allow me to clarify your position...you think we shouldn't dismiss things that are asserted without evidence? Ignore the Razor for a second, just...do you?

Yes. There are three possibilities when hearing an assertion: 1- Belief that it is true. 2- Belief that it is false. 3- Belief that it is unknowable if it is true or false.
By dismissing or rejecting claims you also claim that they are false via rule of double negation.

When the belief have basis in logic or evidence then it can be rational, if not then it is an emotional position. So logical reasons or evidence must be provided to justify a position through an argument. Otherwise it would be an emotional response; we must understand and explain why we rejected a statement before rejecting it.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 5:28:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 5:24:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 5:08:08 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/28/2014 4:34:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 2:52:13 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.


Except you take it to be true in order to use it to dismiss it, thereby admitting it IS true, because you just used it to dismiss itself. I, too, faced paradoxes in primary school. So you really cannot claim to have refuted it, because the only way you can is to use it, but if you use it, then it's no longer valid and therefore couldn't have used it... Blah blah blah.

Round it goes.

It's still valid for this reason. You haven't refuted it, just highlighted a paradox.

Internal non-coherence is self-evidently false, and can never be true. The statement is refuted not because it is true, it is refuted because it is false due to it's complete logical failure. I provided evidence of it's falseness (law of non-contradiction), not by using it's own claim.

A statement or philosophy is self-refuting when it does not meet its own standard or criteria for truthfulness or rational acceptability. So if you wanna believe that assertion that appeals to your emotions are equilivant to logical arguments and principles, and hold an anti-rationality position that believes the principles of logic are non-valid, then good day.

Allow me to clarify your position...you think we shouldn't dismiss things that are asserted without evidence? Ignore the Razor for a second, just...do you?

Yes. There are three possibilities when hearing an assertion: 1- Belief that it is true. 2- Belief that it is false. 3- Belief that it is unknowable if it is true or false.
By dismissing or rejecting claims you also claim that they are false via rule of double negation.

When the belief have basis in logic or evidence then it can be rational, if not then it is an emotional position. So logical reasons or evidence must be provided to justify a position through an argument. Otherwise it would be an emotional response; we must understand and explain why we rejected a statement before rejecting it.

I agree with you there. Of course, dismissing and rejecting a claim are very different things, at least colloquially. You use Hitchen's Razor to dismiss a claim, not reject it.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 5:46:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.

Like you said, it is a rule of thumb, just like every other rule of logic. For example it is a rule of logic that you shouldn't appeal to an authority in an argument, and we all agree with that rule (I hope) but it is a rule that is asserted, it is not "proved," it is simply one of the rules of the game that we have all agreed to accept. The same can be said about Hitchens' Razor, or Occam's Razor, in fact. I also fail to see how it spreads irrationality, in fact I think it does the opposite, if we all accepted this as one more among the many other principles of logic, we would all be far more careful about our claims.

I gather, from some of the posts here, that Christopher Hitchens' atheism has been misunderstood. He never said that he could prove that there is no creator, he did say, however, that he thought that it could be proved that the god of christianity did not exist, and that all Abrahamic faiths were basically nonsensical myths and legends. He said that in the lack of evidence for a creator he would say, when asked the question "do you believe in god?" that he did not believe in such a being.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 5:55:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 5:24:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 5:08:08 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/28/2014 4:34:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 2:52:13 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.


Except you take it to be true in order to use it to dismiss it, thereby admitting it IS true, because you just used it to dismiss itself. I, too, faced paradoxes in primary school. So you really cannot claim to have refuted it, because the only way you can is to use it, but if you use it, then it's no longer valid and therefore couldn't have used it... Blah blah blah.

Round it goes.

It's still valid for this reason. You haven't refuted it, just highlighted a paradox.

Internal non-coherence is self-evidently false, and can never be true. The statement is refuted not because it is true, it is refuted because it is false due to it's complete logical failure. I provided evidence of it's falseness (law of non-contradiction), not by using it's own claim.

A statement or philosophy is self-refuting when it does not meet its own standard or criteria for truthfulness or rational acceptability. So if you wanna believe that assertion that appeals to your emotions are equilivant to logical arguments and principles, and hold an anti-rationality position that believes the principles of logic are non-valid, then good day.

Allow me to clarify your position...you think we shouldn't dismiss things that are asserted without evidence? Ignore the Razor for a second, just...do you?

Yes. There are three possibilities when hearing an assertion: 1- Belief that it is true. 2- Belief that it is false. 3- Belief that it is unknowable if it is true or false.
By dismissing or rejecting claims you also claim that they are false via rule of double negation.

When the belief have basis in logic or evidence then it can be rational, if not then it is an emotional position. So logical reasons or evidence must be provided to justify a position through an argument. Otherwise it would be an emotional response; we must understand and explain why we rejected a statement before rejecting it.

I disagree with your three stances towards assertions. When someone asserts something, the first thing you should do is ask for evidence, so if someone says that they walked on air, as it were, you should ask for evidence of such an event. If no evidence is produced, or worse, if no evidence can be produced, then you can pretty much dismiss it without evidence. Another example would be as follows: if someone accuses you of a crime and you're taken to court and they can't produce any evidence that you did commit a crime, the judge will dismiss the case and declare you innocent. The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim that you committed a crime, you don't have to prove that you are innocent. I think that you have misunderstood Hitchens' Razor.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:09:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 5:56:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This is what passes for philosophy in atheistic circles these days. It's a shame.

Would you mind elaborating on that, please? Or are you just going to insult all atheist philosophers, and their supporters?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:42:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 6:23:37 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles...

Therefore, they don't need logical proof. Your thread is a waste of computing power.

An axiom cannot disprove itself. A self-refuting sentence is impossible to make a rational statement, let alone an axiom or a principle. You believe in it because Hitchen believed in it because it provides an emotional crutch to stick to his beliefs.

Second of all, it fails the laws of logic, this is undeniable. But lets assume it doesn't:

Atheists cannot produce evidence that the theist positions are incorrect,
atheists cannot produce evidence that they can rationally deny the validity of the argument without showing why the argument is not valid (denying the burden of rebuttal),
atheists cannot produce evidence that there is no creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence that there cannot be a creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence to the claim that there is no evidence for theism.

Therefore, if we murder rationality by pretending that Hitchen's razor is true because of emotional need and because "we want to", atheism is dismissible.

Rules of thumb are not logical principles, and do not need logical proof. All that matters is whether they work.

I will repeat that one more time if you still don't understand it. You might want to remove your head from your anus first, or I'll be wasting my breath.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 6:23:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 5:46:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.

Like you said, it is a rule of thumb, just like every other rule of logic. For example it is a rule of logic that you shouldn't appeal to an authority in an argument, and we all agree with that rule (I hope) but it is a rule that is asserted, it is not "proved," it is simply one of the rules of the game that we have all agreed to accept. The same can be said about Hitchens' Razor, or Occam's Razor, in fact. I also fail to see how it spreads irrationality, in fact I think it does the opposite, if we all accepted this as one more among the many other principles of logic, we would all be far more careful about our claims.

Appeal to authority is fallacious because it does not follow, thus not valid, thus irrational. It can be proved. Justification for Occam's razor can be provided, in which it is more reasonable to assume the simpler theory when there is a tie between theories.
Any self-refuting and incoherent statement is irrational and can never exist via. the first principle of logic. Thus you base your principle on blind faith in irrationality.

As I said above, there are three positions on assertions: Belief that it is true, belief that it is false, and belief that it is unknowable if it is true or false.

Atheists cannot produce evidence that the theist positions are incorrect,
atheists cannot produce evidence that they can rationally deny the validity of the argument without showing why the argument is not valid (denying the burden of rebuttal),
atheists cannot produce evidence that there is no creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence that there cannot be a creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence to the claim that there is no evidence for theism.

So do we dismiss atheism?
Did scientists dismiss Higgs boson or dark matter?

I gather, from some of the posts here, that Christopher Hitchens' atheism has been misunderstood. He never said that he could prove that there is no creator, he did say, however, that he thought that it could be proved that the god of christianity did not exist, and that all Abrahamic faiths were basically nonsensical myths and legends. He said that in the lack of evidence for a creator he would say, when asked the question "do you believe in god?" that he did not believe in such a being.

True, he admits that he has no evidence for the emotional criticisms he provides in his book. Criticism without evidence sounds like emotional prejudice to me.

I do not believe that there is no God. Does this mean that I have no burden of proof or rebuttal?
This is called the rule of double negation, which is used as a rhetoric trick here. If I can prove that a car exists, I can also prove that the car is not non-existent. Furthermore, one of the fundamental laws of logic is: "The law of NON-contradiction".

As I said before: No reason = No reasoning = irrational. In order to reject something we need to understand why we rejected it and explain our reason when defending that position.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 6:37:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 5:55:43 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/28/2014 5:24:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 5:08:08 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/28/2014 4:34:36 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 2:52:13 AM, MysticEgg wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.


Except you take it to be true in order to use it to dismiss it, thereby admitting it IS true, because you just used it to dismiss itself. I, too, faced paradoxes in primary school. So you really cannot claim to have refuted it, because the only way you can is to use it, but if you use it, then it's no longer valid and therefore couldn't have used it... Blah blah blah.

Round it goes.

It's still valid for this reason. You haven't refuted it, just highlighted a paradox.

Internal non-coherence is self-evidently false, and can never be true. The statement is refuted not because it is true, it is refuted because it is false due to it's complete logical failure. I provided evidence of it's falseness (law of non-contradiction), not by using it's own claim.

A statement or philosophy is self-refuting when it does not meet its own standard or criteria for truthfulness or rational acceptability. So if you wanna believe that assertion that appeals to your emotions are equilivant to logical arguments and principles, and hold an anti-rationality position that believes the principles of logic are non-valid, then good day.

Allow me to clarify your position...you think we shouldn't dismiss things that are asserted without evidence? Ignore the Razor for a second, just...do you?

Yes. There are three possibilities when hearing an assertion: 1- Belief that it is true. 2- Belief that it is false. 3- Belief that it is unknowable if it is true or false.
By dismissing or rejecting claims you also claim that they are false via rule of double negation.

When the belief have basis in logic or evidence then it can be rational, if not then it is an emotional position. So logical reasons or evidence must be provided to justify a position through an argument. Otherwise it would be an emotional response; we must understand and explain why we rejected a statement before rejecting it.

I disagree with your three stances towards assertions. When someone asserts something, the first thing you should do is ask for evidence, so if someone says that they walked on air, as it were, you should ask for evidence of such an event. If no evidence is produced, or worse, if no evidence can be produced, then you can pretty much dismiss it without evidence. Another example would be as follows: if someone accuses you of a crime and you're taken to court and they can't produce any evidence that you did commit a crime, the judge will dismiss the case and declare you innocent. The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim that you committed a crime, you don't have to prove that you are innocent. I think that you have misunderstood Hitchens' Razor.

Hitchen's Razor promotes misunderstanding of logic and use of the argument from ignorance. This is equivalent to saying that you can dismiss things without reason if you feel like it.

Lets go with the air-walkling man:

1- If the man can air-walk he should be able to demonstrate it.
2- The man can air-walk can not demonstrate it.
C: The man cannot air-walk.

Notice that there can be no absolute proof for the argument. It isn't that inductive logic (which includes the scientific method) can't be absolutely certain about negatives, the thing is that it cannot be absolutely certain about anything. It is necessary and rational to predict something that is overwhelmingly probable, in fact we do it automatically when we use our senses.
Court operates on reasonable doubt as well, not certainty.

As you see, I provided a reason of why not to believe that the man can air-walk. However, what Hitchen implies is complete intellectual laziness and suicide: "I need not to have a reason for my belief, however others do!"
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 7:32:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:42:49 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 8/27/2014 6:23:37 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles...

Therefore, they don't need logical proof. Your thread is a waste of computing power.

An axiom cannot disprove itself. A self-refuting sentence is impossible to make a rational statement, let alone an axiom or a principle. You believe in it because Hitchen believed in it because it provides an emotional crutch to stick to his beliefs.

Second of all, it fails the laws of logic, this is undeniable. But lets assume it doesn't:

Atheists cannot produce evidence that the theist positions are incorrect,
atheists cannot produce evidence that they can rationally deny the validity of the argument without showing why the argument is not valid (denying the burden of rebuttal),
atheists cannot produce evidence that there is no creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence that there cannot be a creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence to the claim that there is no evidence for theism.

Therefore, if we murder rationality by pretending that Hitchen's razor is true because of emotional need and because "we want to", atheism is dismissible.

Rules of thumb are not logical principles, and do not need logical proof. All that matters is whether they work.

I will repeat that one more time if you still don't understand it. You might want to remove your head from your anus first, or I'll be wasting my breath.

Incoherent self-refuting statements are false based on logical contradiction, ergo it does not work.
Did science use a similar principle to dismiss dark matter or the Higgs boson?

What you are trying to protect is your ability to make emotional rejection without evidence or arguments to support your position. Even if it demands the blind acceptance of a non-coherent assertion to do it. If you are satisfied with an emotional and irrational belief, and genuinely accept rejection without a cause, then suit yourself.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 10:25:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think the people objecting to Hitchen's razor understands what is meant by 'dismissed'.

Which just means "go away with your argument and come back when you have something to substantiate it".

It doesn't mean we automatically assume the conclusion of your argument to be false because you haven't presented evidence for it. That is just asinine.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 8:34:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 10:25:18 AM, Envisage wrote:
I don't think the people objecting to Hitchen's razor understands what is meant by 'dismissed'.

Which just means "go away with your argument and come back when you have something to substantiate it".

It doesn't mean we automatically assume the conclusion of your argument to be false because you haven't presented evidence for it. That is just asinine.

An interesting interruption. Unfortunately, that is not what the argument seemed to imply to most (especially with "dismissed without evidence").
Calling an argument devoid of any evidence circular reasoning or question-begging, in which controversial premises the opponent or audience does not agree with are assumed, fulfills the same purpose of what you described.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 10:33:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.

I would hope you recognize that Hitchens may have formulated that specific expression of the term, but that the principle has been around before him.

It's not really paradoxical because, though as a phrase it doesn't support itself, it nonetheless can be supported--it's just a concise statement of how the BoP works. If a claim is unsupported, it need not be accepted as true.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 1:06:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.

you think we are irrational for saying that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. there are a lot of people who feel the same way about it who have never heard that while religious doctrines beliefs and morality are not known until they have been exposed to the religion. thats how i felt when i was told the stories in the bible. its funny to hear people like you talking about irrationality when you believe that god created man from dirt and put a tree in the garden that was not to be eaten from and because adam and eve ate it we all have to suffer and miss out on what would have been heaven on earth. god punishes peoples children for their sins. it says it in the story of noah adam and eve and more. it literally says it in exodus 20:5
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 6:24:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 6:23:46 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 5:46:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:17:53 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

So I saw a significant number of atheists who quote the above statement and use it as a principle and rule for their everyday life, and even a signature (without mentioning names). But did they sit and think about this quote?

I realize that "Razors" are more like rules of thumb rather than established logical principles, but seriously... WTF is that s***?
That statement is asserted without evidence making it self-refuting. If we accept it then we must reject it, and if we falsify it then it can't be true. The problem is that some people actually take that quote seriously and equate to the first principles of logic, I mean seriously stuff like this kills intellect and spreads irrationality, or rather anti-rationality.

Like you said, it is a rule of thumb, just like every other rule of logic. For example it is a rule of logic that you shouldn't appeal to an authority in an argument, and we all agree with that rule (I hope) but it is a rule that is asserted, it is not "proved," it is simply one of the rules of the game that we have all agreed to accept. The same can be said about Hitchens' Razor, or Occam's Razor, in fact. I also fail to see how it spreads irrationality, in fact I think it does the opposite, if we all accepted this as one more among the many other principles of logic, we would all be far more careful about our claims.

Appeal to authority is fallacious because it does not follow, thus not valid, thus irrational. It can be proved. Justification for Occam's razor can be provided, in which it is more reasonable to assume the simpler theory when there is a tie between theories.
Any self-refuting and incoherent statement is irrational and can never exist via. the first principle of logic. Thus you base your principle on blind faith in irrationality.

As I said above, there are three positions on assertions: Belief that it is true, belief that it is false, and belief that it is unknowable if it is true or false.

Atheists cannot produce evidence that the theist positions are incorrect,
atheists cannot produce evidence that they can rationally deny the validity of the argument without showing why the argument is not valid (denying the burden of rebuttal),
atheists cannot produce evidence that there is no creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence that there cannot be a creating agent for the universe,
atheists cannot produce evidence to the claim that there is no evidence for theism.

So do we dismiss atheism?
Did scientists dismiss Higgs boson or dark matter?

I gather, from some of the posts here, that Christopher Hitchens' atheism has been misunderstood. He never said that he could prove that there is no creator, he did say, however, that he thought that it could be proved that the god of christianity did not exist, and that all Abrahamic faiths were basically nonsensical myths and legends. He said that in the lack of evidence for a creator he would say, when asked the question "do you believe in god?" that he did not believe in such a being.

True, he admits that he has no evidence for the emotional criticisms he provides in his book. Criticism without evidence sounds like emotional prejudice to me.

I do not believe that there is no God. Does this mean that I have no burden of proof or rebuttal?
This is called the rule of double negation, which is used as a rhetoric trick here. If I can prove that a car exists, I can also prove that the car is not non-existent. Furthermore, one of the fundamental laws of logic is: "The law of NON-contradiction".

As I said before: No reason = No reasoning = irrational. In order to reject something we need to understand why we rejected it and explain our reason when defending that position.

Again, if you make an assertion and can provide no evidence that it is true, not even hypothetically, then it is perfectly reasonable to reject it. I think that you also accept Hitchens' Razor, I bet that when people come around and tell you that they can fly and they can't prove it, you dismiss their claims as false, or at least, as unproven.

Now, as to your criticisms of atheism, I believe you are the one that has shifted the burden of proof. It is the theist who must provide the evidence for the existence of God, if no evidence is produced the atheist will then dismiss the claim as an unproved assertion, which in practical terms means the same as a false claim.

You say that atheists can't provide evidence that the theist's position is wrong. Well, it depends on which theist we're referring to. One can certainly prove that the god of the Tanakh does not exist simply from the fact that the books of the Tanakh were assembled from about the 9th century BCE to the 2nd century BCE, by half-literate and scientifically ignorant men, whose descriptions of the cosmos, and more importantly of the earth, are wrong, and moreover, each book has something that contradicts the previous one. The entire story is nothing more than a set of compiled, in a rather incompetent manner, works of fiction, in some cases quite admirable ones, like the Tales of Troy, or the Tales of Odysseus, and they possess as much historic content.

Sure, no one can produce evidence that there is no creator of the universe, but no one can prove that there is such an entity, Hitchens' argument, and that of most atheists and agonistics, is that there is no reason to appeal to a creator to explain anything.

Therefore I do not think that atheism can be dismissed.

You mention the Higg's Boson. It is perfectly true that the Higg's Boson lacked any physical evidence for its existence, in that it was not found until that experiment in the LHC a couple of years ago. However, it was proven as a mathematical entity long before that, it made sense of some equations, and accounted for some of the behavior of electrons and other sub-atomic particles. Physicists just had to wait for physical evidence, if the hypothesis had been falsified they would have had to go back to the blackboard and re-think some, if not all, aspects of quantum theory.

This cannot be compared with the unfalsifiable claims of theism, which by the way keep on changing depending on the current scientific landscape. What is one to do when confronted with an unfalsifiable claim that has no shred of evidence to support it? I side with Ayer and Popper and Hitchens in saying that one might as well ignore it. I would be more than happy to debate with you the merits or demerits of any of Hitchens' arguments concerning the non-existence of god.

Finally, it seems to me that it is you who is being rather emotional here, you have been labelling atheists as irrationalists throughout this forum, there is no doubt that some atheists, just like some theists, are irrational, but that doesn't mean that they all are irrational, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting us all in the same category.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2014 7:10:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 7:32:30 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

Incoherent self-refuting statements are false based on logical contradiction, ergo it does not work.

You have asserted that Hitchen's Razor is invalid without providing evidence. I will use Hitchen's Razor to dismiss your argument.

There, I just saved myself a pointless conversation, and can spend my time making a cup of tea instead. The principle worked exactly as intended.

Did science use a similar principle to dismiss dark matter or the Higgs boson?

Of course not, because scientists are describing physical things and not abstract ideas.

What you are trying to protect is your ability to make emotional rejection without evidence or arguments to support your position. Even if it demands the blind acceptance of a non-coherent assertion to do it.

Why should I supply evidence when you have not? It's nothing to do with whether your argument is right or wrong; it's all to do with you wasting my time with horse shiit. That is what a razor does: eliminate the shiit while allowing the good stuff through.

If you are satisfied with an emotional and irrational belief, and genuinely accept rejection without a cause, then suit yourself.

I have a cup of tea now, so I think I can weather your pathetic attacks.