Very interesting discussion! I wish it had gone on longer. Nice sift.

Interesting, but they get so hung up peripheral arguments and arguing purely over definitions that it becomes unbearable. I mean how difficult could it be to grasp that Hitchens believes on the weight of evidence there is an absence of a supernatural realm and claims certainty when of course he can never know that to an absolute degree?

The best definition they could have used for the supernatural, is that it's something that cannot be known. Most atheists don't believe that there's anything that's unknowable - unknown, certainly, but not unknowable. I think that fits well with the point that Hitchens was making.

>> ^RedSky:
Interesting, but they get so hung up peripheral arguments and arguing purely over definitions that it becomes unbearable. I mean how difficult could it be to grasp that Hitchens believes on the weight of evidence there is an absence of a supernatural realm and claims certainty when of course he can never know that to an absolute degree?


The term "supernatural" is extremely fluid. Any discussion on the topic has to begin with what one means by the term. This is hardly a peripheral issue at all. It is fundamental.

The problem comes in saying you are certain that there is nothing supernatural or you are certain there is no god. Hitchens, if he makes such a claim of certainty, would be practicing faith. Not even Dawkins will make such a claim with absolute certainty. But pondering the concept of certainty is pointless, because that's the opposite of what atheism really is. There's not claims of certainty - save for being certain that any claims made MUST have evidence. So, it follows to say that you can be certain to not believe any claims made which have no evidence to back them up.

If only the conversation had gone long enough for them to get over the stumbling. As much as I love the guy, I think Hitchens may have been taking an unnecessarily defensive stance, which prevented any useful discussion.