What sources other than science and reason are used by Athei

paarsurrey · #1 by **paarsurrey** » Feb 20, 2012 7:58 pm

What sources other than science and reason are used by Atheists?

Christopher Hitchens says:

“We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.”

Page-5

Science and reason are not sufficient for the atheists on which Atheism is based or Atheism could be defended.

The other sources are to be defined here.

I asked this question in one of my earlier posts but not many posters defined it; since it is an important question; I thought it proper, therefore, to start a new thread.

Thanks

!	GENERAL MODNOTE This thread has been reported and considered; thanks everyone. Blip

laklak · #2 by **laklak** » Feb 20, 2012 8:00 pm

Science and reason are sufficient for me.

paarsurrey · #3 by **paarsurrey** » Feb 20, 2012 8:06 pm

laklak wrote:Science and reason are sufficient for me.

But I think Hitchens had something concrete it in his mind; which he did not define yet he might have used while writing the book; and hence he wrote this sentence.

DaveScriv · #4 by **DaveScriv** » Feb 20, 2012 8:09 pm

laklak wrote:Science and reason are sufficient for me.

Me too.

Helped along by the beliefs/dogmas/theologies of all religions being so obviously utter tosh. :crazy:

And nasty with it. :puke:

LarianLeQuella · #5 by **LarianLeQuella** » Feb 20, 2012 8:11 pm

Again, you are confusing so many things (not at all unexpected given your posting history here). An atheist is just a person who does not hold to the god hypothesis, that's it. They are still human beings, and cover the full spectrum of stengths and weaknesses that comes with being a human.

You may as well ask what flavour of ice cream atheists enjoy most.

(Black Cherry with Chocolate obviously!)

Tbickle · #6 by **Tbickle** » Feb 20, 2012 8:12 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
laklak wrote:Science and reason are sufficient for me.

But I think Hitchens had something concrete it in his mind; which he did not define yet he might have used while writing the book; and hence he wrote this sentence.

Well, it's too bad that you can't ask Hitchens what he meant. Since it was his words others can only guess as to what he meant, and shouldn't be required to defend his statements for all atheists.

dinkum · #7 by **dinkum** » Feb 20, 2012 8:16 pm

Sources of what?

paarsurrey · #8 by **paarsurrey** » Feb 20, 2012 8:20 pm

dinkum wrote:Sources of what?

You mean Hithchens statement is useless?

laklak · #9 by **laklak** » Feb 20, 2012 8:21 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
laklak wrote:Science and reason are sufficient for me.

But I think Hitchens had something concrete it in his mind; which he did not define yet he might have used while writing the book; and hence he wrote this sentence.

I'm sure he did, but I don't know what he meant. I'm not sure what else is necessary to reject a primitive, superstitious world-view.

matt8819 · **#10** by **matt8819** » Feb 20, 2012 8:26 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
dinkum wrote:Sources of what?

You mean Hithchens statement is useless?

No, but yours are. Maybe you could think of an answer yourself instead of expecting the members of this forum to do that for you.

Of course, we all know you're not going to do that.

Ironclad · **#11** by **Ironclad** » Feb 20, 2012 8:27 pm

Common sense. :dunno:

dinkum · **#12** by **dinkum** » Feb 20, 2012 8:29 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
dinkum wrote:Sources of what?

You mean Hithchens statement is useless?

My question was clear, and it had nothing to do with your disingenuous misinterpretation of that shopworn Hitchens quote.

DaveScriv · **#13** by **DaveScriv** » Feb 20, 2012 8:30 pm

LarianLeQuella wrote:Again, you are confusing so many things (not at all unexpected given your posting history here). An atheist is just a person who does not hold to the god hypothesis, that's it. They are still human beings, and cover the full spectrum of stengths and weaknesses that comes with being a human.

You may as well ask what flavour of ice cream atheists enjoy most.

(Black Cherry with Chocolate obviously!)

I think you're being a bit restrictive there, no true Scotsman/atheist 'n' all that, with the black cherries thing.

If we just say 'variations on a theme of chocolate', then yes, I'd agree with that. :grin:

paarsurrey · **#14** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 20, 2012 8:33 pm

laklak wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
laklak wrote:Science and reason are sufficient for me.

But I think Hitchens had something concrete it in his mind; which he did not define yet he might have used while writing the book; and hence he wrote this sentence.

I'm sure he did, but I don't know what he meant. I'm not sure what else is necessary to reject a primitive, superstitious world-view.

This is important to decipher; he might have employed the other sources in writing his book, which could be unscientific and unreasonable; that will make the whole book a useless endeavor. Won't it?

laklak · **#15** by **laklak** » Feb 20, 2012 8:35 pm

The HItch wasn't a scientist, he was a writer. His book isn't "right" or "wrong", it's his opinion. One I agree with, pretty much.

paarsurrey · **#16** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 20, 2012 8:37 pm

Ironclad wrote:Common sense.

Common sense is with everybody; but Hitchens was talking of something which he thought others have not been endowed with; and is specifically only with the Atheists.

felltoearth · **#17** by **felltoearth** » Feb 20, 2012 8:37 pm

dinkum wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
dinkum wrote:Sources of what?

You mean Hithchens statement is useless?

My question was clear, and it had nothing to do with your disingenuous misinterpretation of that shopworn Hitchens quote.

This is what I was wondering. One requires a source for knowledge. Holy books™ tend to fail miserably in this respect, except for studying human mythology and comparative literature.

dinkum · **#18** by **dinkum** » Feb 20, 2012 8:38 pm

Oh, fuck this shit.

That single, cherry-picked sentence you continually wave about is embedded within a paragraph which explains everything he had in mind in perfectly clear, lucid prose.

Had you actually read the book, paarsurrey, you would know that.

John P. M. · **#19** by **John P. M.** » Feb 20, 2012 8:41 pm

I'm late as usual, but I don't think he was talking about what informs our atheism, rather about all the various nuances of life that are open to atheists; science and reason important ones, but not all we have.

Hitchens wrote:Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake… We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Elliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books.

NilsGLindgren · **#20** by **NilsGLindgren** » Feb 20, 2012 8:41 pm

Ironclad wrote:Common sense.

Am very suspicious of common sense. Should be regarded with utmost skepticism. The evidence value comparable to, 'it stands to reason', 'me father used to say', and, 'I 'eard it from a fellar at the pub'.