A dying message from Hitchens an American Atheist

Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens describes himself as an antitheist and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens says that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion."[12] He argues that the concept of god or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. He wrote at length on atheism and the nature of religion in his 2007 book God Is Not Great.

I think we both know that there is no winning or losing to the god argument.

Nobody knows for certain either way.

Quote:

Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens describes himself as an antitheist and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens says that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion."[12] He argues that the concept of god or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. He wrote at length on atheism and the nature of religion in his 2007 book God Is Not Great.

He argues against the concept of god, then argues for free expression.

What free expression, if you can't have a concept of god?

That's no better than what religion has done.

Antitheist sounds like a movement to stamp out god belief.

That is the nature of religion ( apparently) but I don't believe the god concept need obstruct human advancement.

Nonsense. There is no special privilege for this argument. You'd not say that there is no winning or losing to the unicorn argument. You're promoting a false dichotomy. It's not gods v no-gods; it's natural v supernatural governance. Competing beliefs should both be stated in positive terms.

Such a vacant statement. We can base our views on what knowledge we have, or we can base our views on what we don't know. Hiding behind the impossibility of 100% certainty is total crap. You don't apply such standards elsewhere in your life, nobody does.

Your obviously not familiar with his writing. The question is how you can have free expression with a belief in god. If you believe that a god not only see all your actions but is also knows your thoughts without your permission, you are incapable of free expression.

I think Hitchens is more than confident that rational discourse is more than enough, and has has battled to let atheistic challenges to religious doctrine be heard.

Sorry human history does not support you stand that a god belief system and the religion belief systems that go along with it does not by it very nature interfere with human understanding of the universe.

Why the insistence on linking all god belief to religious systems?
It may be that you don't hear about all the people with personal god beliefs, not related to religion. They don't cause any trouble, or interfere with science.

I think Einstien was inclined to believe in the possibility of god, wasn't he?

Simply, all scientists are not atheist

Most scientists are non-believers by any normal meaning to the term as Einstein was a non-believer in the normal everyday meaning of that term.

Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Most scientists are non-believers by any normal meaning to the term as Einstein was a non-believer in the normal everyday meaning of that term.

Quote:

Nonsense. There is no special privilege for this argument. You'd not say that there is no winning or losing to the unicorn argument. You're promoting a false dichotomy. It's not gods v no-gods; it's natural v supernatural governance. Competing beliefs should both be stated in positive terms.

I don't have a problem with using positive terms.

I don't believe in unexplainable magic either, if that's what supernatural means.

If there is a god, I'm sure he/she/it will turn out to be perfectly natural.

Quote:

Such a vacant statement. We can base our views on what knowledge we have, or we can base our views on what we don't know. Hiding behind the impossibility of 100% certainty is total crap. You don't apply such standards elsewhere in your life, nobody does.

We apply those standards every day, it's called the realm of possibility.

Quote:

Your obviously not familiar with his writing. The question is how you can have free expression with a belief in god. If you believe that a god not only see all your actions but is also knows your thoughts without your permission, you are incapable of free expression.

Knowing and seeing my thoughts isn't the same as controling them.

Quote:

I think Hitchens is more than confident that rational discourse is more than enough, and has has battled to let atheistic challenges to religious doctrine be heard.

I'm all for rational discourse.

I do not accept that a belief in god is inherently irrational, that's foolish. Many people believe in god as prime mover, and that is as rational as any other belief, including belief in scientific propositons which cannot be unquestionably demonstrated. I don't happen to subscribe to that, but that surely doesn't mean that it is irrational.

So you think, then, that scientists who are attempting to work out quantum mechanics, string theory, etc. are irrational. You really don't think about what you're writing before you post it.