TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens. Do you agree?

As human beings, when we first hear this quote we instantly agree to it and make a correlation with science. But when we actually listen to this quote and ponder about it, we figure we cannot entirely agree with this quote or disagree with it completely. This quote brings about various knowledge issues and in some cases you agree and some cases you cannot. The knowledge issues that come up are – science, history, human science, religion, belief, and faith.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 18 2012: It makes perfect sense.
    Yet, when logic is more deeply examined, many times one finds it can be riddled with holes that only the initial acceptance filled up and kept from being found out.
    The more I watched and listened to Christopher Hitchens, the more holes I found. I am no where near intelligent enough to see these things immediately, and he not only could find them in the arguments of others, but his manner of delivery could even scorn a listener or observer, much less the one to whom he was opining to.

    Philosophy is playing at talking.

    By the time Christopher Hitchens was close to death, I found him to be as deep as a puddle, even though, if I had to take sides, I would more readily agree with the side he took. I don't believe in a God but I am not an atheist. I am a faitheist and I believe in what I know. I have faith in what I know. I trust what I know and that trust is unconditional, absolute and complete. I don't know much, but that's good. It's like having a few rules to follow instead of so many that people cannot function because of all of them.

    He debated with people, so winning a point was very important to winning the debate. It wasn't necessarily true.

    Later on, when there is more time to look at it,
    you find flaws flying around
    like on a fresh pile of shit.

    What can be dismissed with evidence is the trick,
    and C.H. dismissed himself with nothing but rhetoric.
    No one pointed this out, but he made it very clear
    During the Big Four debate, but no one seemed to hear.
    When asked if he would like to see
    the end of faith and churches empty of attendees,
    he said, "no", because he
    only wanted something to argue against.

    In his debate with his brother Peter, he disqualified himself from debates, (again no one pointed it out)
    by enlisting the very same criteria the Big Four agreed were grounds for disqualification, "that things have always been that way, so I accept them as being the truth and over look the real evidence that points to something else.
    • thumb
      Dec 18 2012: Random, foregoing the character assassination of Christopher Hitchens, can you cite a "hole" in the statement or an instance where the statement doesn't make "perfect sense"?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.