# I pit Richard Dawkins, Victor Davis Hanson and people like them **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 4, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708 "2012-03-04T06:24:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/121 "2012-03-05T14:47:16Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > This is I think fundamentally the problem with Dawkins style atheists. While they pay lip service to evidence and rationality the fundamental reason why they are atheists is that they emotionally feel that God is inherently ridiculous. In that way they are actually immune to rational evidence and argumentation because when it is presented to them it is emotionally rejected without it being logically evaluated. Then you must accept the same is true of the religious? surely they must be so emotionally invested in god being true that their judgement of any evidence is skewed as well? > [@](#): > > That is why I haven’t launched into reasons why I think God exists. It’s not that I have no reasons, it is that until the underlying flawed atheist epistemology is exposed then it simply is pointless. I’m sorry but that is simply childish. You’ve got great evidence but you can’t tell us? Ridiculous. The evidence should be able to stand on it’s own merit. If my reasoning for rejecting it isn’t justified then I’ll look foolish, I’m quite willing to take that chance. I suspect that the reason you won’t share it is because you know how wishy-washy and thin it is, and that an appeal to a supernatural explanation is not required. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/122 "2012-03-05T14:59:44Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’m sorry but that is simply childish. You’ve got great evidence but you can’t tell us? Just because you want to see the gold plates in his hat doesn’t mean he has to share. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/123 "2012-03-05T15:04:18Z")
Ah, so this is like those great secular arguments against same-sex marriage that totally exist, but they can’t tell us what they are. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/124 "2012-03-05T15:04:36Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Even if true, this is born, from the fact that I have yet to see any evidence for your God. > As per usual, you are not presenting any evidence to change that subjective emotional incredulity…Because you don’t have any. > > All you are doing, when asked to present evidence, is some kind of “gotcha happy dance” ; > > “You can’t prove he doesn’t exist” > “You can’t prove he doesn’t exist” > “You can’t prove he doesn’t exist” Why should I present you for evidence for the existence of God? If your position is that there are no arguments for the existence of God that are not “utterly unconvincing” (as Princhester put it) then you should already know all of the arguments for the existence of God so that you could evaluate them. If you are saying that it is possible that there is arguments and evidence that you are not aware of then that contradicts the statement that there are no reasonable arguments for the existence of God. If there are arguments that you haven’t considered, how do you know that there are no good arguments for the existence of God? So while I could talk about, say the modal ontological argument, the telological fine tuning argument, the Leibnitzian and Kalaam cosmological arguments, the moral argument, the argument from the historicity of the resurrection, qualia based arguments, Thomist first cause arguments, ect, presumably atheists already know all of the ins and outs of these arguments in order jusdge that they are not compelling. I would rather just wait to hear what defeater arguments you have against these arguments and why you find them unconvincing. So, why do you think that all of these arguments are utterly unconvincing? Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/125 "2012-03-05T15:05:05Z")
I think Calculon assumes that atheists think they _know_ there’s no God or that they have an “active belief” that there is absolutely no God or something similar. No. Atheists simply _lack the belief_. God could possibly exist. But so could a huge variety of other entities. They’re all without proof. So we don’t believe in any of them until we have compelling evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/126 "2012-03-05T15:10:26Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I would rather just wait to hear what defeater arguments you have against these arguments and why you find them unconvincing. I honestly think you already know the defeater arguments to these arguments. So why should I repeat them here. You would just handwave them away and do your little dance again. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/127 "2012-03-05T15:12:12Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > This is all honestly really embarrassing to watch. For you. I am a resolute atheist reader and have more sympathy to your actual belief. Your position has been pretty systematically dismantled. For what it’s worth, **Calculon** , this is exactly my position. I find organized religion distasteful for reasons x, y, and z and do not believe in God myself, but others’ belief is absolutely warranted. > [@](#): > > If there is no evidence of any sort for the existence or non-existence of God then the statements that “God exists” and “God does not exist” are equally warranted. If atheists limited themselves to the statement that they themselves choose not to believe because they find no epistemic warrant for belief in God, but they acknowledge that belief in God is warranted and that God may actually exist then that would be fine. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/128 "2012-03-05T15:20:39Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Then you must accept the same is true of the religious? surely they must be so emotionally invested in god being true that their judgement of any evidence is skewed as well? At least the religious typically have rational positive arguments for their positions. So even if they reject all atheist arguments they still have arguments of their own that establish their position. So far I haven ot gotten any positive argument for atheism, so the two situations are not really the same. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I’m sorry but that is simply childish. You’ve got great evidence but you can’t tell us? Ridiculous. The evidence should be able to stand on it’s own merit. If my reasoning for rejecting it isn’t justified then I’ll look foolish, I’m quite willing to take that chance. > > I suspect that the reason you won’t share it is because you know how wishy-washy and thin it is, and that an appeal to a supernatural explanation is not required. The position that atheists give that there are no good arguments for theism necessarily means that atheists have already discovered all of the typical arguments for theism, so there is no need for me to explain to you all of the arguments. Secondly my concern in presenting arguments is that people actually take the time to think about the arguments. Typically what happens when evidence for the existence of God is discussed here is that any evidence or argument presented is simply dismissed without actually interacting with the argument. That can be done quite easily in a way that doesn’t make the person look foolish, especially if it is done with some sort of witty remark. I have better things to do then to type thought out arguements for the existence of God only to have some people call me an idiot and refuse to actually engage with what I am saying. But really I think that for a lot of atheists the quality of the arguments for the existence of God don’t matter. They are atheists because they feel that God is inherently ridiculous, not because the arguments for the existence of God are bad or “wishy-washy”. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/129 "2012-03-05T15:21:53Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > For you. I am a resolute atheist reader and have more sympathy to your actual belief. Your position has been pretty systematically dismantled. > > For what it’s worth, **Calculon** , this is exactly my position. I find organized religion distasteful for reasons x, y, and z and do not believe in God myself, but others’ belief is absolutely warranted. While I disagree with you, at least I can respect your position. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/130 "2012-03-05T15:22:46Z")
By that token, leprechauns, unicorns, brownies, and trolls could exist. There’s no evidence for their existence one way or the other so they exist and they don’t exist are equally valid, according to you. Yet people have no problem telling little kids that there is no monster under the bed. ---
**Author:** ![AndyPolley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/54ee81/32.png) [@AndyPolley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndyPolley)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/131 "2012-03-05T15:23:34Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > But by the same token they have no reason to disbelieve in the existence of God either. So from the atheist would have no argument against the person that claims that the teapot does in fact exist, because they have no reason to doubt that conclusion, just as they have no reas on to doubt the conclusion that the teapot does not exist. So…Do you believe the teapot exists? If so, why? If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/132 "2012-03-05T15:25:40Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > No I understand those concepts just fine. But you don’t seem to get it: There’s no logical necessity behind God. I get that you like to assert that God cannot be logically necessary. Now let’s see if you can come up with some sort of argument that demonstrates why you think this is the case. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Show me evidence that there is no parallel universe where everything is mirrored compared to our world. Why should I? I am happy to grant that such a universe may or may not exist. If the universe is parallel to my one and therefore inaccessible to me, why should I care whether it exists or not? Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/133 "2012-03-05T15:28:56Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Why should I present you for evidence for the existence of God? If your position is that there are no arguments for the existence of God that are not “utterly unconvincing” (as Princhester put it) then you should already know all of the arguments for the existence of God so that you could evaluate them. In other words, “I have evidence but don’t wanna share it because I don’t feel like having my asshole widened.” There are all sorts of retarded arguments people have put forth to argue God’s existence – too many to count. Instead of explicitly asking everyone to waste their time addressing arguments you may not make, why don’t you actually make your argument and see how it stands? > [@Calculon](#): > > If you are saying that it is possible that there is arguments and evidence that you are not aware of then that contradicts the statement that there are no reasonable arguments for the existence of God. If there are arguments that you haven’t considered, how do you know that there are no good arguments for the existence of God? Yes, it is possible for such evidence to exist. It’s just that nobody has provided it. > [@Calculon](#): > > So while I could talk about, say the modal ontological argument, the telological fine tuning argument, the Leibnitzian and Kalaam cosmological arguments, the moral argument, the argument from the historicity of the resurrection, qualia based arguments, Thomist first cause arguments, ect, presumably atheists already know all of the ins and outs of these arguments in order jusdge that they are not compelling. I would rather just wait to hear what defeater arguments you have against these arguments and why you find them unconvincing. > > So, why do you think that all of these arguments are utterly unconvincing? Because all of those arguments you listed are well-understood and have huge holes in them. If that’s the best you have to offer, then yes, your “evidence” is going to get slaughtered and torn apart like a bleeding, wounded gazelle in the Serengeti. I’ll bullet-blast a few of these real quick: Modal ontological argument: Possibility is not proof. It can still be wrong. Hume torn this one apart a long time ago. If I can conceive of something’s existence, I could also conceive of its nonexistence. None of it is proof, in any case. Teleological fine-tuning argument: There’s no proof of teleology, as this implies a designed, guided process/end goal. It’s just more intelligent-design/creationist garbage. Leibnitzian and Kalaam cosmological arguments: Longwinded way to say “The universe had a beginning that was caused by something, therefore God.” Such reasoning does not hold. Moral argument: Morality comes from evolution. Some sense of morality is required in stable societies, otherwise they collapse. If we stole and killed each other all the time, we wouldn’t be here. The societies that learn to cooperate survive. Those that don’t, die. This is basic game theory. Morality doesn’t require supernatural explanation and morality doesn’t support any supernatural explanation. It’s entirely explainable in terms of natural phenomena. Historicity of the Resurrection: You mean how there’s no evidence for such a thing? Alright. Qualia-Based Arguments: “Qualia” doesn’t prove anything supernatural. Qualia is just the brain’s method of encoding stimuli. It’s a very interesting question to debate, but again, it doesn’t prove anything supernatural. Qualia is still a natural phenomenon. First-Cause Arguments: More verbose BS that theists try to use to say “There was a first cause that caused itself, therefore God.” Again, you can’t just blindly insert “therefore God” into something that doesn’t necessarily follow. * * * I mean, you can dance around these all day. They’re all incredibly weak attempts to basically say [Complicated toss of logic!] + [Possibilities] + [Let’s ignore whatever science has to say about things] + [Therefore God!]. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/134 "2012-03-05T15:29:24Z")
Well, exactly. A god that cannot function within my reality is equivalent to no god at all. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/135 "2012-03-05T15:34:39Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > By that token, leprechauns, unicorns, brownies, and trolls could exist. There’s no evidence for their existence one way or the other so they exist and they don’t exist are equally valid, according to you. Yet people have no problem telling little kids that there is no monster under the bed. > [@AndyPolley](#): > > So…Do you believe the teapot exists? If so, why? If not, why not? > [@Calculon](#): > > Alternatively, you could try to show that if God did exist, some secondary statement must necessarily be true. If this statement is false then that would again provide evidence that God does not exist and again there is no evidence for him. To put it in symbolic language the argument goes: > > - If A is true then B must be true > - B is not true > - Therefore A is false. For most of these entities positive arguments for their non-existence can be formed along the lines outlined above. So for instance in the case of unicorns - Since unicorns are by definition large animals, if they existed there should be wide-spread reportings of unicorn sightings - These reports do not exist - Therefore unicorns do not likely exist. The rest of the cases are left as an exercise for the reader. 🙂 My non-belief in these entities is based on positive arguments for their non-existence, not merely on the lack of evidence. No-one thus far has come up with a similar argument for the non-existence of God. BTW **Inner Stickler** what do you have against brownies? They are delicious. 😉 Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/136 "2012-03-05T15:40:44Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > If there is no evidence of any sort for the existence or non-existence of God then the statements that “God exists” and “God does not exist” are equally warranted. If atheists limited themselves to the statement that they themselves choose not to believe because they find no epistemic warrant for belief in God, but they acknowledge that belief in God is warranted and that God may actually exist then that would be fine. Unfortunately for you, this is absolute nonsense. Just because there’s no evidence for something doesn’t mean both statements are equally valid, lmfao. What the fuck are you smoking? Both statements are _invalid_ and are without proof. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/137 "2012-03-05T15:41:52Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Modal ontological argument: Possibility is not proof. It can still be wrong. Hume torn this one apart a long time ago. If I can conceive of something’s existence, I could also conceive of its nonexistence. None of it is proof, in any case. Just a quick reply to note that it only took the first argument to show that you don’t really have a good handle on what you are talking about. The modal ontological argument was only put forth by Alvin Plantiga in he 20th century. Hume wrote in the 18th century. Unless he had access to a time machine I don’t see how Hume could have torn apart an argument that did not exist in his time. Now I am off to bed. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/138 "2012-03-05T15:44:13Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Just a quick reply to note that it only took the first argument to show that you don’t really have a good handle on what you are talking about. The modal ontological argument was only put forth by Alvin Plantiga in he 20th century. Hume wrote in the 18th century. Unless he had access to a time machine I don’t see how Hume could have torn apart an argument that did not exist in his time. > > Now I am off to bed. > > Calculon. The ontological argument goes back much further than the 20th century, dude. Plantinga’s modifications don’t change the underlying problems with the argument.’ From wiki: > [@](#): > > The conclusion relies on a form of modal axiom S5, which states that if something is possibly true, then its possibility is necessary (it is possibly true in all worlds). Plantinga’s S5 also states that if something is possibly necessarily true, then it is necessarily true (it is true in all worlds). > > Plantinga argued that, although the first premise is not rationally established, it is not contrary to reason. Michael Martin argued that, if certain components of perfection are contradictory, such as omnipotence and omniscience, then the first premise is contrary to reason. Martin also proposed parodies of the argument, suggesting that the existence of anything can be demonstrated with Plantinga’s argument, provided it is defined as perfect or special in every possible world.[33] > > Richard M. Gale argued that premise three, the “possibility premise”, begs the question. He stated that one only has the epistemic right to accept the premise if one understands the nested modal operators, and that if one understands them within the system S5—without which the argument fails—then one understands that “possibly necessarily” is in essence the same as “necessarily”.[34] Thus the premise is invalid because the conclusion is embedded within it. Again, I’ll repeat: Possibility is not proof (let alone necessary). It can still be wrong. Feel free to continue dancing and mincing words though. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/139 "2012-03-05T15:48:38Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > For most of these entities positive arguments for their non-existence can be formed along the lines outlined above. So for instance in the case of unicorns > > - Since unicorns are by definition large animals, if they existed there should be wide-spread reportings of unicorn sightings > - These reports do not exist > - Therefore unicorns do not likely exist. > The rest of the cases are left as an exercise for the reader. 🙂 So basically, you’ve decided that it is not necessary for god to interact with reality in a quantifiable way but refuse to allow anything else the same benefits. Interesting. And by interesting, I mean yawn. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708/140 "2012-03-05T15:51:28Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Why should I? I am happy to grant that such a universe may or may not exist. If the universe is parallel to my one and therefore inaccessible to me, why should I care whether it exists or not? > > Calculon. Same goes for God. I am happy to grant that God may or may not exist. If God is inaccessible to me, why should I care whether it exists or not? Same goes for Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Keeping on topic, though, Dawkins has his head on straight even though I think he might be a bit too cold in his delivery. I tend to prefer NDT’s approach. He’s a very personable guy and I think he has an easier time getting people to listen and engage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-richard-dawkins-victor-davis-hanson-and-people-like-them/614708.md?page=8)