@rb1950ful Pornography is fine, the war in Iraq had positive benefits for the allotment of history, not just the present, priests deserve to answer for their crimes (Which wouldn't be death) and Christians have a sense of modern secular morality that contradicts that of the bible, and which, if God really existed, he would shame. Morally, you christians are so far off the mark when you compare it to the Bible, its insane. But we don't have to think about things things, now do we?
Christopher Hitchens' argument is almost always awesome and unstoppable, until he tries to defend his indefensible "leftist" tendencies. If only he sees light in his Politics like he successfully and clearly does with Religion
Yes Soviet Russia was not anti-theistic, more than 1000 priests were not executed, they didn't close or destroy more than 50,000 churches, they didn't insigate state sponsored anti religious indoctrination programs. Jehova's witnesses were not banned or their property expropriated. They didn't cause the closure of over 24,000 mosques. Simply because the orthodox church was state run and exploited through the war for propaganda reasons does not make the general policy theistic. IT's shameful.
Very good, Peter. France was an early model of atheist republicanism (before Darwin). But I think we can say "humans are likely to attak those they disagree with". When two ideas conflict, wars occur - physical ones as well as intellectual ones like this one between Pete and Chris.
Nazism went hand in hand with religion. "Gott mit uns" God with us, was written on german soldiers' belt buckle. You couldnt join the SS without beliving in the christian god. On the top of that, the vatican helped SS members to escape to south america.
Still we dont call it a war of religion, it is a war started from ideology.
Like Stalin or Mao didn't kill because there wanted atheism to replace religion, they wanted communism to replace religion.
I mean, it's giving a reason for a claim that there is no god, and that is taking the burden of proof. Whoever makes the claim, has the burden of proof
Now do you see how positive atheism can form the basis of an ideology, just as theism can form the basis of a religious ideology. In theory, atheism could motivate a zealot to anti-theism. You could say the atheism didn't . Well then I could say theism didn't lead to planes in the WTC and suicide bomings. That's a uniqueness of islam, which is not theism.
@jameshanley40 Islam is a theist ideology - there's no doubt it was a driving factor in motivating 19 young men flying planes into the WTC. I can see from where you're coming with the positive atheism leading to ati-theism leading to violence... i must admit it seems like clutching at straws a bit. You want to change the defintion of theism/atheism in order to make your point; or at least partition the definition of atheism into weak and positive. I think my point is much clearer...
@HarrynJessie ... theism is the belief in God whereas atheism is the non-belief. You're trying to define "positive atheism" in such a way that it is almost indistiguishable from anti-theism. At the same time, you're trying to retain the "atheism" in order to say that "atheism" can be the premise of an act of violence but, I must say, I don't think it's a strong case.
no, i'm not conflating positive atheism with anti-theism. I am saying that a positive atheistic ideology, could have adherents, that are zealous, interpret things. And things can be added within that positive atheistic ideology.. You allow all that for religion and say there's a logical path and condemn it for that.
I didn't mean islam is not theistic. I meant you have to add stuff. I could try to argue a position from your perspective which I still differ with but is closer to the situation I think. I think the distinction between atheism to violence, and theism to violence, is while in both cases you have to ADD stuff(and you don't acknowledge that), in the atheism case, you have to add stuff in addition to atheism, and with theism, you add stuff within.
@jameshanley40 OK i think I see your point. You're saying that there is no direct path from theism straight to violence. You need Islam or some other religion in between. I didn't realise you were referring to theism in terms of its bare bones. So given that this "confusion" is cleared up I'll accept the step. It doesn't change the challenge, however. You can't get an atheist ideology leading to some kind of violence. The closest you can get is with an anti-theist streak in an ideology.
see this is the having it both ways problem. You want to refer to atheism with bare bones nothing added. and you say no logical path to violence. But Theism you add stuff and say logical path to violence. Now, I think you're getting to the same thing as what I thought your argument could be, and I still differ with it. Which is that with theism you're adding within, and with atheism, it's in addition to it. ..
@jameshanley40 but the point about atheism is that it is bare bones. It is the absence of belief. There is no ideological colour to it the way there is with theism. You can't say there is diversity on both sides. I mean, if I was to conflate say Christiannity with theism, what would you conflate atheism with? We've dealt with communism already...
Well, for simplicity, i'm talking of positive atheist ideologies. And positive atheism is not just the absence of belief. There is a difference between I DON'T BELIEVE X. and I BELIEVE NOT X. The latter is I believe X is false. The former doesn't say you believe X is false. The latter doesn't necessarily mean absolute certitude. We both agree you can't have that. It can be that you're sure.
@jameshanley40 If you're saying X is false, that's a claim to certitude. How can you say X is false without being certain? If you're not certain then you must say, at the most, that it is extremely unlikely and thus there's no reason to suppose it. Guess what? This is precisely the position of the atheist. There's no reason to believe in God so why believe in him?
We keep discussing this, absolute certitude thing. Then you move away from it and I assume you've got it, and it turns out you haven't 'cos you come back to it again. So you cause us to go in circles. Can you stick to arguing the point about certitude this time, otherwise we'll just keep coming back to it.
@jameshanley40 we keep going around in circles because you want this "positive atheism" to be the position that claims the existence of God to be false, while at the same time not being certain about it.
@jameshanley40 what's the difference between "certain" and "sure"? If I was certain about something, I'd have thought I was sure about it... by definition.
well, let's call Sure "Sure enough". Could be 95%. 95% is pretty damn sure! but leaves room for doubt. Certainty sounds like no room for doubt, sounds ambiguous and could mean absolute certainty. And I don't mean absolute certainty. I mean Sure without absolute certainty.
@jameshanley40 faarrk. So let's call something something else. On this definition of "sure", I am sure that God does not exist. This position does not accept the BOP. All one hahs to do is show the absence of evidence or reason for the hypothesis. The less reason there is, the more "sure" you become.
Suppose it's implausible, that is reason to believe it is false. If you really do think it's implausible and you'd expect there to be evidence if it existed, then these are not absent reasons, these are reasons to believe it is false. That's positive atheism.
@jameshanley40 OK. In other words, "because it's implausible, therefore its practically false". I can agree to that definition. That's pretty much my position and, I'm gathering, yours too? Anyway, getting back to the original topic, this is still the position of not believing in something. If you were going to form an ideology based on "positive atheism", how would you do it?
this is an important fundamental point positive atheism does take on the burden of proof. Your evolution example is confused. Again, you confuse the difference between saying "I do not believe x", and "I believe x is false". If you mean the latter then say it and accept the burden of proof. If you mean the former then don't take the burden of proof but accept that it's withholding judgement and not believing it's true or false. it's being very unsure and undecided.
@jameshanley40 I would only be accepting the BOP if I was to say that the hypothesis is "strictly" or "categorically" false. In such a case I would be making a new hypothesis, such as "God does not exist". We've agreed that this is not of interest, since almost all atheists would not claim certainty over God's non-existence. If I merely want to be "sure enough" that a hypothesis is false, then I'm not accepting the BOP. That's the very nature of hypothesis testing.
You wrote "I would only be accepting the BOP if I was to say that the hypothesis is 'strictly' or 'categorically' false. In such a case I would be making a new hypothesis, such as 'God does not exist'. " No. Showing a hypothesis is wrong, logically wrong, disproves the hypothesis, meaning the hypothesis failed to show the thing it tested for, but it does not create a new hypothesis.
An argument could say, if there's an X, i'll see Y. Disproving that argument could just mean you were wrong to expect to see Y. Whether you could make a new hypothesis that X doesn't exist, I suppose you'd need strong scientific evidence that X always gives Y. and this thing isn't giving Y under the same conditions that the others do. But a hypothesis failing doesn't create a new hypothesis..you need more to do that, and scientists don't normally do that but they could for some things
your evolution example is also confused, where you say "i could claim that I am 'sure' that evolution is false. I'm not accepting the burden of proof by saying this. " YOU ARE. But you are accepting the burden of proof of backing your claim that evolution is false. But do not fear too much, because If you fail, it doesn't mean evolution is true. Anybody that wants to say something is true, has a burden of proof. Anybody that wants to say it is false, has a burden of proof.
@jameshanley40 no, I'm not. The point about a hypothesis test is that you have two hypotheses: the null (which we aim to reject) and the alternative (which we aim to accept). Remember, we've agreed that certainty is out; we're only interested being "sure enough". This means that "a lack of evidence" is tself admissible as evidence. The more arguments for a proposition are refuted, the more "sure" we become that the alternative hypothesis is false.
If you were to say What about the belief that big dinosaurs exist in New York, i'd say I believe that's False. I'd expect there to be evidence. For the flying spaghetti monster, i'd say that sounds like it came straight from the imagination and completely arbitrary and random and I strongly believe it doesn't exist. See, i've taken the burden of proof. Now, if i'd failed to show it's false, it doesn't make it true.
@jameshanley40 Take the dinosaurs example. All you've done is say there's no evidence. This is not taking on the BOP. This is saying there is no evidence, hence no reason to accept the hypothesis. And this is my point: we cannot say that there are, categorically, no dinosaurs in NY... but we can be "sure enough" - in this case virtually certain - that there aren't any because there's no evidence and there is very good evidence to suggest that they died out 65 million years ago.
@HarrynJessie "there is very good evidence to suggest that they died out 65 million years ago." Certainly, this could be used as evidence to support the (alternative) hypothesis, "there are no dinosaurs in NY". The point I'd make, however, is that this is unnecessary. We can quite comfortably say: "there's no evidence to suggest a dinosaur in NY, thus no grounds for supposing it's true, thus grounds for being "sure enough" that no dinosaur exists and behaving accordingly".
Your philosophy seems to have a basis in statistics, but it seems to clash with scientific skepticism.. so most likely i'm missing a piece of the puzzle. Though looking at it.. the statistical method might still work without the assumption. I think, if random chance(present nature I suppose) can be the cause , then there isn't even good evidence that there is a phenomenon err mathematical anomaly happening at all.
suppose I refute all the reasons for the flying spaghetti monster, that doesn't mean i've refuted the flying spaghetti monster, only the reasons given.. But, if I give reasons for thinking it doesn't exist, reasons for thinking it's false, then i'm taking the burden of proof, and with the burden of proof, comes the ability to say I believe it's false. Otherwise you're just saying "I don't believe it's true, I don't believe it's false, I withhold judgement. i'm not sure".
@jameshanley40 "suppose I refute all the reasons for the flying spaghetti monster, that doesn't mean i've refuted the flying spaghetti monster, only the reasons given". That's completely correct. But you would say that you're "sure enough" that the FSM does not exist. If there are no reasons to believe a particular theory, then a rational person has no grounds for accepting that theory. We don't have to say that the theory is "strictly" false... only that it is completely unsubstantiated.
it may be wise to say that for certain types of god, you argue they're false and give reasons. but for others you are not sure they're false, they may be a bit plausible and you just withhold judgement and take a strong undecided position. I think the withholding judgement position has various strengths.. one can withhold judgement out of ignorance of the arguments,or after studying them.. and the latter is stronger. But it's not saying you believe the thing is false.It's strange
"suppose I refute all the reasons for the flying spaghetti monster, that doesn't mean i've refuted the flying spaghetti monster, only the reasons given.. " I mean, i've refuted only those reasons given.. There may be other reasons or amendments to them, that are right, but it'd mean that if i've refuted all the reasons that a person believes, (or, their best few), and they're refuted, then they have no more reason to believe.
@jameshanley40 Let's say the null hypothesis is: "the FSM doesn't exist"; and the alternative is: "the FSM does exist" - btw these aren't scientific hypotheses as they aren't falsifiable but nevermind. We want to reject the null. Now, even if we've refuted ALL POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS for the alternative, our conclusion must still be, "failure to reject the null", not "acceptance of the null". So even here we only get a "sure enough". But this is all we are asking for.
That person given no reason to believe it is false, would if they were rational be shifted into the not sure one way or the other camp, withholding judgement. in the future a new reason may come up. A prophecy may get fulfilled and require investigation and reconsideration, by both those that withhold judgement, and those that believe it's false. There may be a sign that increases plausibility / decreases implausibility. And by the way that's not far fetched.
@jameshanley40 it seems that you want "witholding judgement", agnosticism, to mean being strictly uncommitted. I think this is somewhat fallacious. If you were to propose the existence of the FSM, and there was no readily available evidence, then I would be within my rational rights to assume that it doesn't exist, without going near any arguments for its existence. I mean, I would be strictly agnostic, but practically a-flyingspaghettimonsterist.
@HarrynJessie what's more, even if I'm ignorant of various argumets for a theory, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily 50/50. For example, I don't know you. I don't even know that you exist. I could potentially be conversing with a computer. However, am I entitled to be strictly agnostic about you're existence, having not considered it in any depth? I would submit not because I can make some immediate observations suggesting that you do exist. I can't prove it but i can be "sure enough".
You could make a philosophical argument against. I wouldn't call it a hypothesis.. but an argument that if X existed you'd expect Y. In the case of god, you don't have good scientific evidence behind the test of your "hypothesis" so I wouldn't call it a hypothesis.. but it's a philosophical argument, and you could make a strong one. But it is giving a reason, and that is taking on the burden of proof.
@jameshanley40 if we made a proposition, "if X exists then we'd expect Y" is a hypothesis. It mightn't necessarily be a scientific or statistical hypothesis; it might be a philosophical or logical hypothesis. But it is a hypothesis. Now, if we were given several arguments to justify the hypothesis, which all end up being refuted, then we must conclude that there is no basis for accepting the hypothesis. It may be that we've made the wrong arguments, and that the theory is true, however...
Thing is the only way to refute it would be if X exists and we didn't get Y. (e.g. if God exists then we'd expect RPDP-reward and punishment distributed perfectly ). That'd be refuted, if God existed and we didn't get that. But you don't mean to do that refutation, then your hypothesis is really one that claims X exists. So it's more than just the If. Or maybe it is the IF X->Y, but it's an inductive inference,meaning going from effect to cause. So X is RPDP and Y is God.
Still, the logical refutation of that logical claim, is if X happens and Y doesn't happen. But you don't mean that refutation. So all one can really say for this case, and maybe for any hypothesis in science, is, If the hypothesis is supported or not. I think the "null hypothesis" The hypothesis that If X(everything is as it is) then Y(thing doesn't exist). That has one of 2 uses a)just making the main hypothesis falsifiable or B)as a new hypothesis and requiring evidence
and when it's just to make the main hypothesis falsifiable, i'm not convinced that it's an If claim. It's just a way to make the main hypothesis falsifiable. But falsifiable or not, just boils down to whether supported or not. Not whether the If is refuted.
@HarrynJessie ... if we (currently) have no evidence to support the hypothesis, our default position must be to assume that, "if X exists then we don't expect Y". In practice, we wouldn't be 50/50. If we've made arguments, and they've been refuted, then we can lean towards false with some degree of certainty. The more arguments made, the more sure we become of its falsity. We wouldn't need to accept the BOP to get to a "sure enough" position and this is all an atheist needs.
I say define X and Y, so I can see which is the cause and which the effect.. I think the example I gave of effect to cause, If RPDP(reward and punishment distributed perfectly) then God, a slight correction, I think it's abductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning.
ok i've read a bit about hte null hypothesis, it seems to be more from statistics than regular science.. and i'm not entirely sure to what extent it applies to normal scientific claims.. But the thing is that God claims are perhaps not necessarily statistical claims. But all that aside.. It seems to clash with Scientific Skepticism which I think is where the withholding judgement concept comes from.
I can see that with the null hypothesis concept in statistics, you assume random chance caused the observation that's the null hypothesis,..then try to refute that. But i'm not really comfortable with the idea of making an assumption when you don't know. Why make an assumption. An assumption really just means Suppose. Assume X is true, means Suppose X is true. It's to follow a line of argument, it's not an end point. You and statistics are using it as an end point.
so yeah, the null hypothesis would be evidence for random chance and that may by consequence, be evidence against some other cause. I still don't like the idea of assuming something as an end point, for practical purposes. It sounds like assume here means some kind of belief but not an assumption as in "suppose". I guess belief is what we call, an (end point) assumption for practical purposes! there's certainly much food for thought here.
@HarrynJessie i could claim that I am "sure" that evolution is false. I'm not accepting the burden of proof by saying this. The evolutionist still has the burden of proof. The difference is that there is a vast amount of evidence for evolution, upon which the evolutionist can draw, which I would then have to refute. Same logic goes for the God hypothesis.
And if you rule out adding in addition, then you say the most you can get is an anti-theistic streak. So you're sticking to adding within. But I think this distinction is illusory(besides arguably being not so morally relevant). It's illusory, because if you have an atheistic belief, a natural consequence of it, is man thinking for himself, and so Whatever man adds, is within the atheistic ideology.
@jameshanley40 This is exactly my point. It would indeed by atheistic... but this is not its motivation. It would be motivated by some other ideology - whether it be teachings of various moral philosophers or political theorists or whatever - but it's atheism would be merely incidental. You cannot base a society or a life or an action on the non-belief in a deity. It might sound like I'm spelling it out: not believing in a deity does not provide the grounds for an action.
I haven't really brought up basing an ideology on the withholding judgement position which you call atheism but also says that you don't believe god doesn't exist. I'm not talking about that so-called weak atheism. I'm talking about an ideology based on Positive atheism, and that is more than just non belief in a deity.
@jameshanley40 You still seem to think atheism can lead directly to an ideology. Let me draw an analogy. Could you base an ideology on morality? That is, could you form a set of beliefs that were grounded in the notion of what is morally correct?
the morality analogy is way off topic 'cos there is the is-ought problem. Let's not go there. My issue is you trying to have it both ways. You make atheism barebones. And say it doesn't lead to an ideology. FINE. I can accept that. But you refuse to make theism barebones and agree it doesn't lead to anything more either. I am not saying atheism can lead to violence, i'm saying if atheism can theism can. And if atheism can't, theism can't. You can't have it both ways.
@jameshanley40 Sorry but that's rubbish. You can start with theism and build an ideology from there. Why? because it's a belief in something. You can't start with atheism and build an ideology from there. Why? because you'd still be starting from nothing. No belief. In this case you'd still require some other philosophical building block. An atheist ideology cannot be grounded in atheism. It must be only incedentally so.
can you acknowledge that i'm talking about positive atheism so I don't keep having to repeat it? You can argue that there is no such thing, or that positive atheism is just absence of belief in a deity, and i'll argue that you're wrong and why. But don't just keep repeating that i'm talking about absence of belief of a deity.
@jameshanley40 the difficulty i have is that this notion of "positive atheism" purports to claim certitude about the existence of God when at the same time you want to leave certitude aside. I want to argue on the basis of what atheism actually means, not on some partition of atheism that people construct, usually, to shift the burden of proof from the theist to the athiest... or, in this case, to counter the claim that atheism provides no logical pathway toward violence.
@jameshanley40 well what's the difference between "positive atheism" and my atheist position, which is that there is no evidence or logical reason to suggest that he does exist, thus there is no reason to believe that he does?
On your atheistic position.. what's the difference between that and positive atheism. I'd say it's at the far right of weak atheism, to say that you've examined the arguments, and not found them convincing. It's better than for example,not examining them.It's ducking the burden of proof. And I suppose shouldn't be a confident position It could be amended to PA,'cos you probably think that if he did exist you'd expect evidence. and that it's implausible. then you're accepting BOP
@jameshanley40 there is no burden of proof on the atheist. The theist is the one who is making the proposition that god exists - the burden lies squarely on the theist. Why would the burden of proof be applied differently for this particular hypothesis? Whether you've examined the arguments is neither here nor there. If there's no apparent reason to believe in god, you're an atheist. All new-born babies, for example, are atheists. They don't believe in anything at that stage.
See I think really, you probably think that if he did exist you'd expect evidence. and that it's implausible. then you're accepting BOP. Once you say that if it exists you'd expect evidence, then that's evidence against it in itself. And that's an argument against, you'd then be accepting burden of proof, and that's positive atheism, which is really where Dawkins is, where you are, where I am..
I'd go a step further in my point. maybe.. ! In the theistic ideology, just believing in the person deity governing the world, doesn't mean you believe in following him any more than atheism says you should follow man's dictates. Similarly, if you say you should follow the deity's dictates, then you can say the same for atheism.. So I think it's still within it and not in addition to it, when things are added to the barebones. of the atheistic or theistic ideology.
slight correction, when I spoke of the proper(uncolloquial) definition of agnosticism, I think it means the belief that we can't know things for certain, rather than the belief that we can't know things for sure. But you mean the colloquial.. not committing e.t.c. and that's weak atheism.
@jameshanley40 the point I was making was that, in reality, agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. I mean, an agnostic doesn't hedge his bets with literally every decision, just in case God exists. He is a de facto atheist. And obviously an atheist doesn't believe in God so makes decisions in that scenario. An agnostic is just an atheist that's trying to display a facade of being uncontroversial or impartial.
I'm so greatful for people like C. Hitchens, R.Dawkins,and Sam Harris, because I really don't have that kind of patience with grown-ups, kids beliveing in this crap,I can understand, but adults should be laugh at until they become so embarresed for beliving such non-sense, as T.Jefferson once said:"Question boldly about the belief in one God or many Gods".
@h Well, correlation does not necessarily equal causation (therefore why one shouldn't immediately subscribe to the notion of stalin was atheist, killed people, therefore being atheist automatically predisposes you to kill people)...but one could kill a priest in the name of atheism, using either the vernacular or linguistically correct definition; an example of the former would be killing for worshipping an (allegedly) inexistent diety, and the latter would be for the refusal to stay skeptical.
Comunism, was all about power; power was instilled through money but through terror and force. Lenin, Stalin, had to conquer the minds and devotion of the many and ignorant. They had to supplant the curch which failed to bring them happines and failed to put them out of misery. They needed enemies to coalesce the multitudes. Lenin and Stalin elevated themselves to the rank of god, the party took place of the church and the doctrines replaced the bible.
@Democrit1to9Freud You're entirely correct. Peter Hitchens is equating anti-clericalism with atheism, which, while one could make the argument that they could easily go hand in hand, that was obviously not necessarily the case in communist Russia. Lenin and Stalin (and I would argue Stalin particularly so), as you say, "elevated themselves" to the rank of god - above the law - and saw themselves not only as ABOVE the law, but as the GENESIS of law and 'morality' in communist Russia.
Peter's actually better here, he knows what he's talking about, after all he has lived in the sovjet...
It's almost frightening how much blind faith Ch has in atheism here, and also he is saying exactly how atheism most be to be seen as atheism. Peter could do the same thing and say that nothing bad has ever been done in the name of christianity since Ch cannot name a state or organization that has done exactly like Jesus said with his turn the other cheek, love your neighbour, love your enemy
Marxist communism by neccessity was atheist. Its overarching point was that any division in society caused instability. This extended to religious institutions, and the habit of looking at people as believers/ none believers. Leninism (soviet union) and Maoism (China) both inherited this. Chris definetly (deliberate or not) exaggerated facts here. He normally concedes that they were atheist in the traditional sense of the word.
The fact is both Stalin and Mao were atheists. Both were convinced religious institutions were a parasite preventing the formation of a perfect communist society. Both were convinced they did nothing but tell lies. So they regularly persecuted religions, religious institutions, and religious believers. Both founded states that advocated atheism officially (not humanistic atheism). Both were responsible for the murder of priests, monks, rabbi, so on and so forth.
However (and this is the point that chris normally makes), atheism itself would never produce the regimes of Mao and Stalin. Certainly atheism along side the belief that mass murder against state enemies is justifed. Or along side marxist notions of class warfare. But atheism itself doesn't.
@ghostbuddy Then neither does theism itself produce mass murder. It needs a book and some other beliefs to lead to mass murder. You can't have it both ways like Hitchens and Dawkins want it. Either both do, or both don't. Clearly both do
"Then neither does theism itself produce mass murder. It needs a book and some other beliefs to lead to mass murder."
You are confusing theism with deism. Theism refers to theology, the study of a religious book. By neccessity a theist already has a book, and a belief in the words therein. And I already disputed the fact that atheism leads to mass murder itself. Going back there, and saying "clearly they both do" without reference to facts or reason, is asinine.
So what better describes CH's position? atheist or non deist? Most atheists are really more correctly non deists. They say they lack a belief in a god, they don't believe in any gods. and many positively deny that any god exists. They don't just say they don't believe in gods that author books.
Your taking their arguements out of context. Atheists don't see any reason to believe in god, and observe no one else appears to have a good reason to believe in god. It is then theists who argue that atheism is immoral. That a moral system needs a god and a book to fall back on. Their rebuttle is very deliberately aimed towards the abrahamic faiths. That there is a great deal in those books that are quite demonstratably immoral. And thus the arguement isn't valid.
When they refer to the crimes of theism, they are not addressing deism. However, when they talk about crimes against reason, it still applies to deism. You are still believing in something, without provocation. Your statement about theism various only between religions. Hindu theism doesn't neccesairly lead to mass murder. But christian, islamic and jewish fundamentalism very well might.
if atheism doesn't lead to mass murder, since it doesn't necessarily have somebody commanding them to kill theists or others, and have people listening. Theism doesn't necessarily either. Since a religion's theology based around books, don't necessarily lead to killing and can even lead to pacifism, depending on what the book says and how it is interpreted.
Your right in observing how it is interperted can make all the difference. But when we say interperted we really mean to say- depending on what parts does the person choose to ignore, and what parts do they choose to put emphasis on. Ultimately, barring a rewrite, the books will always say the same thing. The old testament will always look at imperalism, slavery, and genocide as if it was not only okay but demanded of the jews by god.
@ghostbuddy Interpretation doesn't mean ignoring things. Have you ever spoken to a fundamentalist. It is about being consistent and not picking and choosing. Picking and choosing is what religious liberals do. Even the god hates fags fundamentalists don't stone adulterers. But I suppose some people may make some interpretation that allows certain things in the old testament such as killing witches, could happen in theory perhaps.
@ghostbuddy The old testament is not very imperialistic.. seriously. Jews live in Israel.. Israel is a TINY piece of land. Islammic imperialism is -huge-.The imperialistic dreams of chrisopher columbus were far bigger. British imperialism.Pretty much every other imperialism is far more large scale than so-called jewish imperialism.In fact, archaeologists now believe that jews were the canaanites, and the conquest written of in the bible never happened.
And in that way, no matter how much our civilization advances, so long as there are people who take the bible seriously, it will prevent our moral systems from evolving. Envitably some one (far from everyone but someone) will always go back to that old testament, see those references of indecent conduct, sactioned by the god. And they'll say, "god wants us to stone adulters, liars , and homosexuals". They'll say, "god hates homosexuals". Because its right there.
atheist or non theistic ideologies don't need a book initially but in time tend to produce one.. and can be dangerous. Communism was against deism and theism and persecuted them and held people from a better quality of life. Nazism was I suppose not to do with belief in god for or against. But it was non theistic, and caused huge damage and misery. There are obviously good non theistic ideologies too!
you can only say this of religion and not atheism, because there isn't a term for dogma based around atheism - dogma based around the lack of a belief in a deity. So let's say you have a term for that, call it atheist-dogma. As opposed to religion or theist-dogma. Now are you going to say that communism isn't atheist-dogma, while Christianity is theist-dogma? That atheist-dogma does not motivate anything bad, and that theist-dogma does? and would you have called atheist-dogma religion?
No. You can only say this of religion and not atheism because, by definition, there's no such thing as atheist dogma. Communism (or Fascism, or anarchism etc) is not based on the non-belief in a deity. Communism is not necessarily incompatible with religious belief. There is no logical path from atheism to communism. There is, however, a logical path from Christian theism to Christian-dogma. Your distinction between theist/atheist-dogma is a false dichotomy.
Forget religious belief. I am talking about Atheism and Theism. Is communism incompatible with theism? Explain how there is no such thing as Atheist Dogma(as in, dogma based around atheism), but there is such a thing as Theist Dogma(dogma based around theism)?
@jameshanley40 Christianity is theist dogma. Islam is theist dogma. Hinduism... need i go on? Dogmas are, by definition, based on some sort of belief about the world. You cannot have a dogma that is based on the absence of a particular belief. You cannot have, for example, a dogma based on amorality. You cannot have an atheist dogma... Stalinism was incidentally non-theist; it wasn't based on atheism.
an aspect of communism is not just a lack of belief in god like a lack of belief in vampires. It's a positive belief that there is no god, / an emphasis on it.. Karl Marx saw religion as the opiate of the people. So the atheistic nature of communism is not comparable to that of say Mathematics where belief in a god is irrelevant and arbitrary. Communism is an atheistic dogma requiring belief in no god, that is a belief, positive atheism.
@jameshanley40 all you've done is assert that non-belief in God is a necessary condition for communism. You haven't proven anything. Tell me why belief in government by everyone, state control over the economy etc. is predicated upon the non-belief in God or even prevents belief in God.
@HarrynJessie I don't have to. What i'm saying, is communism rejects god, one can google it. I don't know enough about it to tell you why. There may theoretically be some forms of communism that reject karl marx's views on religion and are neutral on it, perhaps they've never existed but they may be as much atheistic as mathematics.. i.e. just an absence, or that it's irrelevant.. If you look at communist regimes, it seems all or most have positively taken an anti-religious stance.
@jameshanley40 haha, well historically communist regimes have rejected God. But historically communist regimes haven't resembled communism at all. They've been much more like fascist dictatorships. The reason why proponents and dictators of communist regimes have rejected belief in God was because they themselves wanted to fill the void. Perhaps Stalin didn't want to be worshipped - that would be a little too obvious - but he certainly demanded obedience and trust in a rather theistic way.
@jameshanley40 oh that may very well be the case. I did read some of the Manifesto some years ago when studying the Russian Revolution. I can't remember if there was anti-religious sentiment but there very well could be, given Marx's sentiments to religion. But I'd also note that Marx sent his kids to fee-paying schools whilst receiving monetary donations from Engels. So, in a sense, Marx's whole conception of communism was wrapped in contradictions and paradoxes.
@HarrynJessie let's not exaggerate, and on an example of what may just be him not living up to his own teachings and exempting himself. Some say many theistic ideologies are paradoxical and wrapped in contradictions,but,.And they still have their tenets.. and philosophies, and I don't think the atheism or anti religiousness in marx's writings and specifically, the communist manifesto, is contradicted. The anti-religious regimes too, AFAIK(and I know little),were not also not anti religious..
@jameshanley40 I was only pointing out that the founder of communism was far from working class. He was bourgeoise with higher aspirations. Communism was founded by a guy whose actions seem to be inconsistent with his beliefs. The point being, just because he was anti-religious and wrote anti-religious sentiment into the Manifesto, doesn't mean belief in God is necessarily incompatible with communism. Nor does it imply that communism is necessarily founded upon anti-theism or atheism.
was it really inconsistent? wasn't there in communism a proleteriat/elite that have the good life. Let's say it's possible to have a brand of communism that ignores the anti-religious elements of the manifesto. It's theoretical. Marx's communism and the big regimes have all stayed true to marx's anti religious philosophy, so it and they are anti-theistic ideologies. That's the reality of communism. And Marx's philosophy of it.
@jameshanley40 the dictatorship of the proletariat was a syptom of the socialist transition period between capitalism and communism. Under pure communism there was no ruling class. Government was run by society. The reality of communism, i fully accept, is completely different to any theoretical version... largely because the theory relies on people being fundamentally "good", which is repeatedly proved wrong. In any case, the most we can say is that regimes have been incedentally atheist.
if it's in the communist manifesto, that's like the bible of communism. I don't think you can then say it's incidental to it. And Marx's philosophy emphasised it.. and all the big communist regimes emphasised it, that's the reailty of communism.where positive rejection of god/religion has been emphasised.
@jameshanley40 i don't really like the analogy to the bible. The Manifesto is nothing like a bible because its merely a starting point. Political ideologies can evolve over time. Religion can't due to God's omniscience. Again I ask you, why have communist regimes been fundamentally anti-religion? Because the dictators wanted to supplant God as their society's unquestionable leader: Castro, Stalin... anyone you care to mention. In reality, communism doesn't exist; just a variant of fascism
a manifesto is more than just a starting point, because people will keep going back to it and trying to get to the point which it seeks, and to maintain it. Religion can evolve, for example, islam and judaism have a legal system, that evolves. New doctrines can appear in a religion. by interpretation or a mini revelation.. Different schools of thought can exist. Like any ideology, there are basic principles that tend not to change, and there are others more likely to change
@jameshanley40 OK it's not "merely a starting point" but more of a basis for the theory. I disagree about religion. The Qu'ran, for example, should be read as literally possible because it is the word of God. God's will hasn't changed over the last 1000+ years; but people's have. Any modifications that occur over a period of time mean that a religion - and its offshoots - becomes less like the religion. The opposite is true for political ideologies; they evolve continually over time.
@jameshanley40 No doubt religion more than just scripture. My point is however that if, for example, you accept the evidence for evolution - thereby rejecting both of the creation stories in Genesis - your religion becomes de facto less like the religion should be in its pure form. For example, I would say that Anglicanism is nothing like true Christianity. Political ideologies are different. They are allowed to evolve over time, and retain their purity, save for a few core principles.
a story when taken metaphorically, and believed as a metaphor, may not really betray core principles. A religion can have a strong interpretative tradition, you could say for creation that even when it was written it wasn't meant literally, because what was a day on days 1-3 before the sun. Certainly though what political ideologies don't have, are people running to label themselves as capitalist/communist, when their interpretation is a complete mockery of it!!
@jameshanley40 aww.. maybe. I still think that if the Bible, Qu'ran etc. are meant to be fair representations of God's words/will, I doubt God would be deliberately trying to confuse us as to whether he ought to be taken literally or allegorically. My reaction would be to take God at his word, hence to conform to scripture. I certainly do agree with your last sentence. The upshot of all this, anyway, is that even though Marx was anti-theistic, doesn't mean communism is necessarily atheistic.
@HarrynJessie I suppose they could just keep the economic part and reject the anti religious part, even if in practice, the big regimes, or almost any communist regime, have not, and the latter is important if looking to condemn because it's the reality of it, the practice of it. But aside from all that. The positively atheistic societies, those rejecting religion, have been responsible for the biggest massacres.
@jameshanley40 you want to call those regimes "positive atheist", when really they were "anti-theist". Atheism is just the rejection of God, whereas anti-theism is the positive objection to any god. Those regimes were not based on a non-belief, but on the view that God should be absolutely banished from society. These are two quite different beliefs and that was my original point: you cannot base a society on a non-belief. A society must be based on some positive belief(s).
Weak atheism is absence of belief in x. it requires no evidence, it's really withholding judgement and not knowing being very unsure. Strong atheism is you believe ~X. You believe X is false. That comes with a burden of proof, it requires evidence. That's positive atheism. Anti-theism means you hate it.. like Hitchens even hates it if it were true.
@jameshanley40 atheism is just the non-belief in a god, just as theism is simply the belief in a god. Sure, some atheists will claim there is no God (which I too would tentatively claim). Theists don't have to claim that there is a god; only that it is likely, given the nature of our reality, and that this provides good enough reason to believe. Atheism is the absence of theism, just as amoral implies the absence of morality, or asexual implies the absence of sex in reproduction.
The Absence of a belief, means you don't know, maybe true maybe not, you withhold judgement. I don't think that's what you mean is it? Look up positive atheism, it does exist. And just like, if a religion says cover up x,y and some people cover up x,y,z and some only x. So too a positively atheistic ideology saying god and religion is false - a delusion, could lead some to say it's bad for society, and some to say let's remove it.
@jameshanley40 I really think you're trying to read too much into one word. Atheism means you don't believe in (the existence of) god. It's just the opposite of theism. Now, atheism could i guess be seen as an umbrella system of non-theist views (i.e agnosticism, atheism and "positive atheism"). I'd ask you this: what is the actual difference between, say, an agnostic - who in principle remains 50/50 on the existence of god - and an atheist who doesn't believe in god? I'd say nothing.
you haven't have it both ways saying zealous follower of a positively atheistic ideology, is led by something else, whereas a zealous theist is not. Really SH is right, there is no "religion" it's like sport, there are violent ones and peaceful ones. It's a vicious immoral sick over-generalization that Hitchens and Dawkins foolishly use.. But Sam Harris is decent enough to not use and to criticise those that do for their foolishness.
@jameshanley40 I can't really see how I'm having it both ways. A society which wanted to remove all religion is not dissimilar to a theocracy, in which is religious freedom is banned, except you'd be going one religion further. It's anti-theist. Not atheist. But again I'd ask you: name me a regime which was motivated to do something awful because it was an aetheistic society.
@HarrynJessie all 3 - Hitch, RD and SH - say that faith is a bad way to organise one's life or a society. Sure, there are some religious faiths which are less violent, such as Janeism or Buddhism, than others, such as Christiannity or Islam. The point they ALL make, however, is that no-one, ever, in the history of the world, has been motivated by atheism to do bad things... whereas there are innumerable examples of people doing bad things in the name of religion.
@HarrynJessie But saying you don't know you're withholding judgement, you're unwilling to commit, is far more honest than saying the more confident sounding "I DON'T BELIEVE". 'cos what you really mean is "I don't believe it's true and I don't believe it's false" and if you mean that and just say "I don't believe", then it's misleading and you're making out to have a stronger position than you have. And BTW, positive atheism DOES exist as weak does. So yes, Atheism is an umbrella term.
@jameshanley40 actually it's far more honest, if there's no reason to believe it, to call oneself an atheist. If there is no reason to believe in God; if there's no evidence or logical necessity, as far as I can tell, then clearly it's far more honest to say that I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in the existence God, rather than say I'm ucommitted either way - which, by the way, is to be in a 50/50 position. I don't think we really have a disagreement on "agnosticism" based on your response.
It's not like uncommitted to the belief is 50/50. and committed to it is 51+/49. You could be uncommitted at 70%. If there's a good chance something is false then you're not sure, you can be uncommitted. An agnostic -can- hedge his bets, I think many do. Sometimes people in a desperate situation think may pray just case, whereas if they were sure he doesn't exist then they wouldn't bother.
Sometimes in a religion that requires commitment, people may not be sure enough to just throw life enjoyment away, and they partially commit. So if there is a god they've done just enough.
Agnosticism actually means we can't know things for sure, so you could be an Agnostic theist. But what you mean is Colloquially. Colloquially agnostic means withhold judgement, don't know. I don't think it means 50/50/ but it means unwilling to commit.
@jameshanley40 this is why I don't like the term "agnostic". It muddies the water. If you take RD's scale of religiosity, there are 7 steps from what might be called "positive theist" to "positive atheist". In reality, most atheists will sit on the step just before positive atheism - that we see no reason to believe in the existence of a deity but that there is still a possibility, albeit remote, that one could exist - but the fact is we are atheists because we don't believe in God.
No. That is confusion. I haven't read RD's steps, and he's not a philosopher, but you are missing key steps. Let's agree throw away the idea of absolute certitude. The step below that would be being SURE that there is no god. That's positive atheism.
@jameshanley40 so what if he's not a philosopher? I think his scale is rather instructive. You can't get rid of certitude because plenty of religious people would claim it. There's no confusion. I'm an atheist who is as certain about there being no God as I am certain about evolution or the laws of physics. In principle I know there is still the possibility that God does exist but I'm not about to organise my life with that in mind.
that whole "so what if he's not a philosopher" comment you make seems to be completely arguing a strawman. I'm not telling you to have absolute certitude, i'm not telling you to organize your life around religion. And i'm not saying that many religious believers do not have absolute certitude. On the contrary many do, but that's obvious and not the discussion we've been having.
@jameshanley40 I was merely responding to your proposition that we "agree [to] throw away the idea of absolute certitude". I was making the point that while most atheists would not claim absolute certitude, most theists would and so there is an imbalance on the scale of religiosity.
You seem to be hopelessly blind to the fact that you are over-generalizing when saying religion led to x, some do, some don't. But then you don't say ideas lead to violence. I could accept a form of communism could exist that isn't atheist despite the manifesto, but for you that's enough to say communism doesn't lead to atheism. Yet you don't give that luxury to religion. Yet religions actually exist that are not violent. And you don't criticise IDEAS for leading to violence.
@jameshanley40 I criticise all ideas, taken on faith, when they cause wars. Like I said several times: Stalin and Hitler committed horrendous crimes in the name of political ideologies (or other "ideas"); not religion. The common factor between those regimes and modern-day Al Qaeda, however, is FAITH. I don't say that religion invariably leads to violence. I do say that there is a logical path between theism and violence but there is no such path between atheism and violence.
so yes. Hitler was not motivated by atheism. But communism from its core text, so it's theory, to its practice, those big regimes, have all been motivated by communism, in their anti religiousness. Atheism is a positive belief, and it it itself, LIKE THEISM ITSELF, does not necessary lead to violence. The book could say anything. Could be interpreted differently. Even islam could be a religion of peace. COULD. But in theory it's hard and in practice it largely isn't.
@jameshanley40 If we were to say that religion should have no influence on public decision-making, and thereby ban or curtail religious freedom, this would be a policy motivated by anti-theis, not atheism. I still can't see how anyone could say, "well, I don't believe in God and I'm going to be violent or hateful, for that reason". In any example we would care to mention, there will be some other motivating belief in play... it may be anti-theist; but that's as close as it can get.
...and I'm a Mormon.
HelFKiernan 3 weeks ago
So to sum up, pornography is fine, the war in Iraq was great, priests deserve death and Christians have no morals.
rb1950ful 2 months ago 3
@rb1950ful Pornography is fine, the war in Iraq had positive benefits for the allotment of history, not just the present, priests deserve to answer for their crimes (Which wouldn't be death) and Christians have a sense of modern secular morality that contradicts that of the bible, and which, if God really existed, he would shame. Morally, you christians are so far off the mark when you compare it to the Bible, its insane. But we don't have to think about things things, now do we?
Barbershop666 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Show me a government that adopted the teachings of Gandhi, MLK, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc. that fell into tyranny.....you can't.....
rb1950ful 2 months ago
Comment removed
rb1950ful 2 months ago
I'm sure Peter can afford to replace that missing tooth???
marcohorowitz8 2 months ago 6
@marcohorowitz8 But God meant for him to lose it, as a test of his faith.
angryafghan 1 month ago
civility IS over-rated. Too right!
marcohorowitz8 2 months ago
Prohibit Peter from using words with S, please
xyoop 3 months ago 3
Christopher Hitchens' argument is almost always awesome and unstoppable, until he tries to defend his indefensible "leftist" tendencies. If only he sees light in his Politics like he successfully and clearly does with Religion
obaidey 4 months ago
Thank you for posting this, HauensteinCenter.
writersblock26 5 months ago
Yes Soviet Russia was not anti-theistic, more than 1000 priests were not executed, they didn't close or destroy more than 50,000 churches, they didn't insigate state sponsored anti religious indoctrination programs. Jehova's witnesses were not banned or their property expropriated. They didn't cause the closure of over 24,000 mosques. Simply because the orthodox church was state run and exploited through the war for propaganda reasons does not make the general policy theistic. IT's shameful.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
Peter needs to blunt his S's they hurt my ears man
Coolguyrob2006 7 months ago 11
@Coolguyrob2006 LOL true, but he's good though bro
Davincimath 5 months ago
Very good, Peter. France was an early model of atheist republicanism (before Darwin). But I think we can say "humans are likely to attak those they disagree with". When two ideas conflict, wars occur - physical ones as well as intellectual ones like this one between Pete and Chris.
GenghisKhan44 7 months ago
Comment removed
matrix4022 7 months ago
"you lose boychick, you lose" #LOL
angryafghan 7 months ago 3
@angryafghan Isn't he referring to "Bolshevik" ? It does sound the same and holds more relevance I guess.
egodrive 1 month ago
@egodrive no lol pretty sure it's a reference to the Yiddish term, basically means "little boy" and very apt LOL thanks for reminded me!
angryafghan 1 month ago
LOL that freaky little old fuck got pwned!!! His "retort" was drowned out by applause from the audience LMAO
angryafghan 7 months ago
Didnt PH get his answer?
Nazism went hand in hand with religion. "Gott mit uns" God with us, was written on german soldiers' belt buckle. You couldnt join the SS without beliving in the christian god. On the top of that, the vatican helped SS members to escape to south america.
Still we dont call it a war of religion, it is a war started from ideology.
Like Stalin or Mao didn't kill because there wanted atheism to replace religion, they wanted communism to replace religion.
mymom1234 7 months ago
I don't think the winner of this debate is too hard to pick out! Not because he is smart or a great debater,but because he is RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!
NOMADdaf 8 months ago
1:27 I love it when Hitchens gets feisty.
Jotto999 8 months ago
i'm going to look up about the null hypothesis
jameshanley40 8 months ago
I mean, it's giving a reason for a claim that there is no god, and that is taking the burden of proof. Whoever makes the claim, has the burden of proof
jameshanley40 8 months ago
Now do you see how positive atheism can form the basis of an ideology, just as theism can form the basis of a religious ideology. In theory, atheism could motivate a zealot to anti-theism. You could say the atheism didn't . Well then I could say theism didn't lead to planes in the WTC and suicide bomings. That's a uniqueness of islam, which is not theism.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 Islam is a theist ideology - there's no doubt it was a driving factor in motivating 19 young men flying planes into the WTC. I can see from where you're coming with the positive atheism leading to ati-theism leading to violence... i must admit it seems like clutching at straws a bit. You want to change the defintion of theism/atheism in order to make your point; or at least partition the definition of atheism into weak and positive. I think my point is much clearer...
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie ... theism is the belief in God whereas atheism is the non-belief. You're trying to define "positive atheism" in such a way that it is almost indistiguishable from anti-theism. At the same time, you're trying to retain the "atheism" in order to say that "atheism" can be the premise of an act of violence but, I must say, I don't think it's a strong case.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
no, i'm not conflating positive atheism with anti-theism. I am saying that a positive atheistic ideology, could have adherents, that are zealous, interpret things. And things can be added within that positive atheistic ideology.. You allow all that for religion and say there's a logical path and condemn it for that.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
I didn't mean islam is not theistic. I meant you have to add stuff. I could try to argue a position from your perspective which I still differ with but is closer to the situation I think. I think the distinction between atheism to violence, and theism to violence, is while in both cases you have to ADD stuff(and you don't acknowledge that), in the atheism case, you have to add stuff in addition to atheism, and with theism, you add stuff within.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 OK i think I see your point. You're saying that there is no direct path from theism straight to violence. You need Islam or some other religion in between. I didn't realise you were referring to theism in terms of its bare bones. So given that this "confusion" is cleared up I'll accept the step. It doesn't change the challenge, however. You can't get an atheist ideology leading to some kind of violence. The closest you can get is with an anti-theist streak in an ideology.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
see this is the having it both ways problem. You want to refer to atheism with bare bones nothing added. and you say no logical path to violence. But Theism you add stuff and say logical path to violence. Now, I think you're getting to the same thing as what I thought your argument could be, and I still differ with it. Which is that with theism you're adding within, and with atheism, it's in addition to it. ..
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 but the point about atheism is that it is bare bones. It is the absence of belief. There is no ideological colour to it the way there is with theism. You can't say there is diversity on both sides. I mean, if I was to conflate say Christiannity with theism, what would you conflate atheism with? We've dealt with communism already...
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Well, for simplicity, i'm talking of positive atheist ideologies. And positive atheism is not just the absence of belief. There is a difference between I DON'T BELIEVE X. and I BELIEVE NOT X. The latter is I believe X is false. The former doesn't say you believe X is false. The latter doesn't necessarily mean absolute certitude. We both agree you can't have that. It can be that you're sure.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 If you're saying X is false, that's a claim to certitude. How can you say X is false without being certain? If you're not certain then you must say, at the most, that it is extremely unlikely and thus there's no reason to suppose it. Guess what? This is precisely the position of the atheist. There's no reason to believe in God so why believe in him?
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
We keep discussing this, absolute certitude thing. Then you move away from it and I assume you've got it, and it turns out you haven't 'cos you come back to it again. So you cause us to go in circles. Can you stick to arguing the point about certitude this time, otherwise we'll just keep coming back to it.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 we keep going around in circles because you want this "positive atheism" to be the position that claims the existence of God to be false, while at the same time not being certain about it.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Forget Certain. It's ambiguous. Let's talk of "Absolute Certainty". and Sure. These are the two options.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 what's the difference between "certain" and "sure"? If I was certain about something, I'd have thought I was sure about it... by definition.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
well, let's call Sure "Sure enough". Could be 95%. 95% is pretty damn sure! but leaves room for doubt. Certainty sounds like no room for doubt, sounds ambiguous and could mean absolute certainty. And I don't mean absolute certainty. I mean Sure without absolute certainty.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 faarrk. So let's call something something else. On this definition of "sure", I am sure that God does not exist. This position does not accept the BOP. All one hahs to do is show the absence of evidence or reason for the hypothesis. The less reason there is, the more "sure" you become.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Suppose it's implausible, that is reason to believe it is false. If you really do think it's implausible and you'd expect there to be evidence if it existed, then these are not absent reasons, these are reasons to believe it is false. That's positive atheism.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 OK. In other words, "because it's implausible, therefore its practically false". I can agree to that definition. That's pretty much my position and, I'm gathering, yours too? Anyway, getting back to the original topic, this is still the position of not believing in something. If you were going to form an ideology based on "positive atheism", how would you do it?
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie i'll get back to you here, as mentioned in my PM.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
this is an important fundamental point positive atheism does take on the burden of proof. Your evolution example is confused. Again, you confuse the difference between saying "I do not believe x", and "I believe x is false". If you mean the latter then say it and accept the burden of proof. If you mean the former then don't take the burden of proof but accept that it's withholding judgement and not believing it's true or false. it's being very unsure and undecided.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 I would only be accepting the BOP if I was to say that the hypothesis is "strictly" or "categorically" false. In such a case I would be making a new hypothesis, such as "God does not exist". We've agreed that this is not of interest, since almost all atheists would not claim certainty over God's non-existence. If I merely want to be "sure enough" that a hypothesis is false, then I'm not accepting the BOP. That's the very nature of hypothesis testing.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HarrynJessie
You wrote "I would only be accepting the BOP if I was to say that the hypothesis is 'strictly' or 'categorically' false. In such a case I would be making a new hypothesis, such as 'God does not exist'. " No. Showing a hypothesis is wrong, logically wrong, disproves the hypothesis, meaning the hypothesis failed to show the thing it tested for, but it does not create a new hypothesis.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
An argument could say, if there's an X, i'll see Y. Disproving that argument could just mean you were wrong to expect to see Y. Whether you could make a new hypothesis that X doesn't exist, I suppose you'd need strong scientific evidence that X always gives Y. and this thing isn't giving Y under the same conditions that the others do. But a hypothesis failing doesn't create a new hypothesis..you need more to do that, and scientists don't normally do that but they could for some things
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
your evolution example is also confused, where you say "i could claim that I am 'sure' that evolution is false. I'm not accepting the burden of proof by saying this. " YOU ARE. But you are accepting the burden of proof of backing your claim that evolution is false. But do not fear too much, because If you fail, it doesn't mean evolution is true. Anybody that wants to say something is true, has a burden of proof. Anybody that wants to say it is false, has a burden of proof.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 no, I'm not. The point about a hypothesis test is that you have two hypotheses: the null (which we aim to reject) and the alternative (which we aim to accept). Remember, we've agreed that certainty is out; we're only interested being "sure enough". This means that "a lack of evidence" is tself admissible as evidence. The more arguments for a proposition are refuted, the more "sure" we become that the alternative hypothesis is false.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
If you were to say What about the belief that big dinosaurs exist in New York, i'd say I believe that's False. I'd expect there to be evidence. For the flying spaghetti monster, i'd say that sounds like it came straight from the imagination and completely arbitrary and random and I strongly believe it doesn't exist. See, i've taken the burden of proof. Now, if i'd failed to show it's false, it doesn't make it true.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 Take the dinosaurs example. All you've done is say there's no evidence. This is not taking on the BOP. This is saying there is no evidence, hence no reason to accept the hypothesis. And this is my point: we cannot say that there are, categorically, no dinosaurs in NY... but we can be "sure enough" - in this case virtually certain - that there aren't any because there's no evidence and there is very good evidence to suggest that they died out 65 million years ago.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie "there is very good evidence to suggest that they died out 65 million years ago." Certainly, this could be used as evidence to support the (alternative) hypothesis, "there are no dinosaurs in NY". The point I'd make, however, is that this is unnecessary. We can quite comfortably say: "there's no evidence to suggest a dinosaur in NY, thus no grounds for supposing it's true, thus grounds for being "sure enough" that no dinosaur exists and behaving accordingly".
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Your philosophy seems to have a basis in statistics, but it seems to clash with scientific skepticism.. so most likely i'm missing a piece of the puzzle. Though looking at it.. the statistical method might still work without the assumption. I think, if random chance(present nature I suppose) can be the cause , then there isn't even good evidence that there is a phenomenon err mathematical anomaly happening at all.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
suppose I refute all the reasons for the flying spaghetti monster, that doesn't mean i've refuted the flying spaghetti monster, only the reasons given.. But, if I give reasons for thinking it doesn't exist, reasons for thinking it's false, then i'm taking the burden of proof, and with the burden of proof, comes the ability to say I believe it's false. Otherwise you're just saying "I don't believe it's true, I don't believe it's false, I withhold judgement. i'm not sure".
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 "suppose I refute all the reasons for the flying spaghetti monster, that doesn't mean i've refuted the flying spaghetti monster, only the reasons given". That's completely correct. But you would say that you're "sure enough" that the FSM does not exist. If there are no reasons to believe a particular theory, then a rational person has no grounds for accepting that theory. We don't have to say that the theory is "strictly" false... only that it is completely unsubstantiated.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
it may be wise to say that for certain types of god, you argue they're false and give reasons. but for others you are not sure they're false, they may be a bit plausible and you just withhold judgement and take a strong undecided position. I think the withholding judgement position has various strengths.. one can withhold judgement out of ignorance of the arguments,or after studying them.. and the latter is stronger. But it's not saying you believe the thing is false.It's strange
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40
"suppose I refute all the reasons for the flying spaghetti monster, that doesn't mean i've refuted the flying spaghetti monster, only the reasons given.. " I mean, i've refuted only those reasons given.. There may be other reasons or amendments to them, that are right, but it'd mean that if i've refuted all the reasons that a person believes, (or, their best few), and they're refuted, then they have no more reason to believe.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 Let's say the null hypothesis is: "the FSM doesn't exist"; and the alternative is: "the FSM does exist" - btw these aren't scientific hypotheses as they aren't falsifiable but nevermind. We want to reject the null. Now, even if we've refuted ALL POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS for the alternative, our conclusion must still be, "failure to reject the null", not "acceptance of the null". So even here we only get a "sure enough". But this is all we are asking for.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@jameshanley40
That person given no reason to believe it is false, would if they were rational be shifted into the not sure one way or the other camp, withholding judgement. in the future a new reason may come up. A prophecy may get fulfilled and require investigation and reconsideration, by both those that withhold judgement, and those that believe it's false. There may be a sign that increases plausibility / decreases implausibility. And by the way that's not far fetched.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 it seems that you want "witholding judgement", agnosticism, to mean being strictly uncommitted. I think this is somewhat fallacious. If you were to propose the existence of the FSM, and there was no readily available evidence, then I would be within my rational rights to assume that it doesn't exist, without going near any arguments for its existence. I mean, I would be strictly agnostic, but practically a-flyingspaghettimonsterist.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie what's more, even if I'm ignorant of various argumets for a theory, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily 50/50. For example, I don't know you. I don't even know that you exist. I could potentially be conversing with a computer. However, am I entitled to be strictly agnostic about you're existence, having not considered it in any depth? I would submit not because I can make some immediate observations suggesting that you do exist. I can't prove it but i can be "sure enough".
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
You could make a philosophical argument against. I wouldn't call it a hypothesis.. but an argument that if X existed you'd expect Y. In the case of god, you don't have good scientific evidence behind the test of your "hypothesis" so I wouldn't call it a hypothesis.. but it's a philosophical argument, and you could make a strong one. But it is giving a reason, and that is taking on the burden of proof.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 if we made a proposition, "if X exists then we'd expect Y" is a hypothesis. It mightn't necessarily be a scientific or statistical hypothesis; it might be a philosophical or logical hypothesis. But it is a hypothesis. Now, if we were given several arguments to justify the hypothesis, which all end up being refuted, then we must conclude that there is no basis for accepting the hypothesis. It may be that we've made the wrong arguments, and that the theory is true, however...
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Thing is the only way to refute it would be if X exists and we didn't get Y. (e.g. if God exists then we'd expect RPDP-reward and punishment distributed perfectly ). That'd be refuted, if God existed and we didn't get that. But you don't mean to do that refutation, then your hypothesis is really one that claims X exists. So it's more than just the If. Or maybe it is the IF X->Y, but it's an inductive inference,meaning going from effect to cause. So X is RPDP and Y is God.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40
Still, the logical refutation of that logical claim, is if X happens and Y doesn't happen. But you don't mean that refutation. So all one can really say for this case, and maybe for any hypothesis in science, is, If the hypothesis is supported or not. I think the "null hypothesis" The hypothesis that If X(everything is as it is) then Y(thing doesn't exist). That has one of 2 uses a)just making the main hypothesis falsifiable or B)as a new hypothesis and requiring evidence
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40
and when it's just to make the main hypothesis falsifiable, i'm not convinced that it's an If claim. It's just a way to make the main hypothesis falsifiable. But falsifiable or not, just boils down to whether supported or not. Not whether the If is refuted.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie ... if we (currently) have no evidence to support the hypothesis, our default position must be to assume that, "if X exists then we don't expect Y". In practice, we wouldn't be 50/50. If we've made arguments, and they've been refuted, then we can lean towards false with some degree of certainty. The more arguments made, the more sure we become of its falsity. We wouldn't need to accept the BOP to get to a "sure enough" position and this is all an atheist needs.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Define X and Y.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40
I say define X and Y, so I can see which is the cause and which the effect.. I think the example I gave of effect to cause, If RPDP(reward and punishment distributed perfectly) then God, a slight correction, I think it's abductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
ok i've read a bit about hte null hypothesis, it seems to be more from statistics than regular science.. and i'm not entirely sure to what extent it applies to normal scientific claims.. But the thing is that God claims are perhaps not necessarily statistical claims. But all that aside.. It seems to clash with Scientific Skepticism which I think is where the withholding judgement concept comes from.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
I can see that with the null hypothesis concept in statistics, you assume random chance caused the observation that's the null hypothesis,..then try to refute that. But i'm not really comfortable with the idea of making an assumption when you don't know. Why make an assumption. An assumption really just means Suppose. Assume X is true, means Suppose X is true. It's to follow a line of argument, it's not an end point. You and statistics are using it as an end point.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
so yeah, the null hypothesis would be evidence for random chance and that may by consequence, be evidence against some other cause. I still don't like the idea of assuming something as an end point, for practical purposes. It sounds like assume here means some kind of belief but not an assumption as in "suppose". I guess belief is what we call, an (end point) assumption for practical purposes! there's certainly much food for thought here.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie i could claim that I am "sure" that evolution is false. I'm not accepting the burden of proof by saying this. The evolutionist still has the burden of proof. The difference is that there is a vast amount of evidence for evolution, upon which the evolutionist can draw, which I would then have to refute. Same logic goes for the God hypothesis.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
And if you rule out adding in addition, then you say the most you can get is an anti-theistic streak. So you're sticking to adding within. But I think this distinction is illusory(besides arguably being not so morally relevant). It's illusory, because if you have an atheistic belief, a natural consequence of it, is man thinking for himself, and so Whatever man adds, is within the atheistic ideology.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 This is exactly my point. It would indeed by atheistic... but this is not its motivation. It would be motivated by some other ideology - whether it be teachings of various moral philosophers or political theorists or whatever - but it's atheism would be merely incidental. You cannot base a society or a life or an action on the non-belief in a deity. It might sound like I'm spelling it out: not believing in a deity does not provide the grounds for an action.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
I haven't really brought up basing an ideology on the withholding judgement position which you call atheism but also says that you don't believe god doesn't exist. I'm not talking about that so-called weak atheism. I'm talking about an ideology based on Positive atheism, and that is more than just non belief in a deity.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 You still seem to think atheism can lead directly to an ideology. Let me draw an analogy. Could you base an ideology on morality? That is, could you form a set of beliefs that were grounded in the notion of what is morally correct?
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
the morality analogy is way off topic 'cos there is the is-ought problem. Let's not go there. My issue is you trying to have it both ways. You make atheism barebones. And say it doesn't lead to an ideology. FINE. I can accept that. But you refuse to make theism barebones and agree it doesn't lead to anything more either. I am not saying atheism can lead to violence, i'm saying if atheism can theism can. And if atheism can't, theism can't. You can't have it both ways.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 Sorry but that's rubbish. You can start with theism and build an ideology from there. Why? because it's a belief in something. You can't start with atheism and build an ideology from there. Why? because you'd still be starting from nothing. No belief. In this case you'd still require some other philosophical building block. An atheist ideology cannot be grounded in atheism. It must be only incedentally so.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
can you acknowledge that i'm talking about positive atheism so I don't keep having to repeat it? You can argue that there is no such thing, or that positive atheism is just absence of belief in a deity, and i'll argue that you're wrong and why. But don't just keep repeating that i'm talking about absence of belief of a deity.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 the difficulty i have is that this notion of "positive atheism" purports to claim certitude about the existence of God when at the same time you want to leave certitude aside. I want to argue on the basis of what atheism actually means, not on some partition of atheism that people construct, usually, to shift the burden of proof from the theist to the athiest... or, in this case, to counter the claim that atheism provides no logical pathway toward violence.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Positive atheism does not require absolute certitude. If you think it does then cite a source. You're wrong.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 well what's the difference between "positive atheism" and my atheist position, which is that there is no evidence or logical reason to suggest that he does exist, thus there is no reason to believe that he does?
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
On your atheistic position.. what's the difference between that and positive atheism. I'd say it's at the far right of weak atheism, to say that you've examined the arguments, and not found them convincing. It's better than for example,not examining them.It's ducking the burden of proof. And I suppose shouldn't be a confident position It could be amended to PA,'cos you probably think that if he did exist you'd expect evidence. and that it's implausible. then you're accepting BOP
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 there is no burden of proof on the atheist. The theist is the one who is making the proposition that god exists - the burden lies squarely on the theist. Why would the burden of proof be applied differently for this particular hypothesis? Whether you've examined the arguments is neither here nor there. If there's no apparent reason to believe in god, you're an atheist. All new-born babies, for example, are atheists. They don't believe in anything at that stage.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
See I think really, you probably think that if he did exist you'd expect evidence. and that it's implausible. then you're accepting BOP. Once you say that if it exists you'd expect evidence, then that's evidence against it in itself. And that's an argument against, you'd then be accepting burden of proof, and that's positive atheism, which is really where Dawkins is, where you are, where I am..
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
I'd go a step further in my point. maybe.. ! In the theistic ideology, just believing in the person deity governing the world, doesn't mean you believe in following him any more than atheism says you should follow man's dictates. Similarly, if you say you should follow the deity's dictates, then you can say the same for atheism.. So I think it's still within it and not in addition to it, when things are added to the barebones. of the atheistic or theistic ideology.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
slight correction, when I spoke of the proper(uncolloquial) definition of agnosticism, I think it means the belief that we can't know things for certain, rather than the belief that we can't know things for sure. But you mean the colloquial.. not committing e.t.c. and that's weak atheism.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 the point I was making was that, in reality, agnosticism and atheism are the same thing. I mean, an agnostic doesn't hedge his bets with literally every decision, just in case God exists. He is a de facto atheist. And obviously an atheist doesn't believe in God so makes decisions in that scenario. An agnostic is just an atheist that's trying to display a facade of being uncontroversial or impartial.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
I'm so greatful for people like C. Hitchens, R.Dawkins,and Sam Harris, because I really don't have that kind of patience with grown-ups, kids beliveing in this crap,I can understand, but adults should be laugh at until they become so embarresed for beliving such non-sense, as T.Jefferson once said:"Question boldly about the belief in one God or many Gods".
k9a2g6 9 months ago
CIVILITY IS OVERRATED!
ColeDaltonBaker 9 months ago 2
Todays lecture: Never piss off the Hitch
sebah1991 10 months ago
I feel like Christopher could make a good argument...and convince that its true...for the motion "Unicorns exist."
baughskeet 10 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@baughskeet
"I feel like Christopher could make a good argument...and convince that its true...for the motion "Unicorns exist.""
That is obviously because you're as thick as a carpet
jameshanley40 8 months ago
To say that anyone is killed in the name of atheism is absurd. It´s like saying Stalin and Hitler killed people because they both had moustache´s..
hognip 11 months ago
@h Well, correlation does not necessarily equal causation (therefore why one shouldn't immediately subscribe to the notion of stalin was atheist, killed people, therefore being atheist automatically predisposes you to kill people)...but one could kill a priest in the name of atheism, using either the vernacular or linguistically correct definition; an example of the former would be killing for worshipping an (allegedly) inexistent diety, and the latter would be for the refusal to stay skeptical.
ExEverest10 9 months ago
Comunism, was all about power; power was instilled through money but through terror and force. Lenin, Stalin, had to conquer the minds and devotion of the many and ignorant. They had to supplant the curch which failed to bring them happines and failed to put them out of misery. They needed enemies to coalesce the multitudes. Lenin and Stalin elevated themselves to the rank of god, the party took place of the church and the doctrines replaced the bible.
Democrit1to9Freud 11 months ago
@Democrit1to9Freud You're entirely correct. Peter Hitchens is equating anti-clericalism with atheism, which, while one could make the argument that they could easily go hand in hand, that was obviously not necessarily the case in communist Russia. Lenin and Stalin (and I would argue Stalin particularly so), as you say, "elevated themselves" to the rank of god - above the law - and saw themselves not only as ABOVE the law, but as the GENESIS of law and 'morality' in communist Russia.
StrayJ89 10 months ago
Listening to Chris is like an intellectual orgasm.
Hankatu 1 year ago
Did Peter swallow a whistle? His whisper is annoying every time he pronounces the letter S...
hyperstone6 1 year ago
My previous comment was quoting another poster and then an answer, why was it labeled as spam?
Masbirreo 1 year ago
Peter's actually better here, he knows what he's talking about, after all he has lived in the sovjet...
It's almost frightening how much blind faith Ch has in atheism here, and also he is saying exactly how atheism most be to be seen as atheism. Peter could do the same thing and say that nothing bad has ever been done in the name of christianity since Ch cannot name a state or organization that has done exactly like Jesus said with his turn the other cheek, love your neighbour, love your enemy
woweixiaomiandui 1 year ago
Is Communism -necessarily- Atheist?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
Marxist communism by neccessity was atheist. Its overarching point was that any division in society caused instability. This extended to religious institutions, and the habit of looking at people as believers/ none believers. Leninism (soviet union) and Maoism (China) both inherited this. Chris definetly (deliberate or not) exaggerated facts here. He normally concedes that they were atheist in the traditional sense of the word.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy
The fact is both Stalin and Mao were atheists. Both were convinced religious institutions were a parasite preventing the formation of a perfect communist society. Both were convinced they did nothing but tell lies. So they regularly persecuted religions, religious institutions, and religious believers. Both founded states that advocated atheism officially (not humanistic atheism). Both were responsible for the murder of priests, monks, rabbi, so on and so forth.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy
However (and this is the point that chris normally makes), atheism itself would never produce the regimes of Mao and Stalin. Certainly atheism along side the belief that mass murder against state enemies is justifed. Or along side marxist notions of class warfare. But atheism itself doesn't.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy Then neither does theism itself produce mass murder. It needs a book and some other beliefs to lead to mass murder. You can't have it both ways like Hitchens and Dawkins want it. Either both do, or both don't. Clearly both do
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
"Then neither does theism itself produce mass murder. It needs a book and some other beliefs to lead to mass murder."
You are confusing theism with deism. Theism refers to theology, the study of a religious book. By neccessity a theist already has a book, and a belief in the words therein. And I already disputed the fact that atheism leads to mass murder itself. Going back there, and saying "clearly they both do" without reference to facts or reason, is asinine.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy
So what better describes CH's position? atheist or non deist? Most atheists are really more correctly non deists. They say they lack a belief in a god, they don't believe in any gods. and many positively deny that any god exists. They don't just say they don't believe in gods that author books.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
Your taking their arguements out of context. Atheists don't see any reason to believe in god, and observe no one else appears to have a good reason to believe in god. It is then theists who argue that atheism is immoral. That a moral system needs a god and a book to fall back on. Their rebuttle is very deliberately aimed towards the abrahamic faiths. That there is a great deal in those books that are quite demonstratably immoral. And thus the arguement isn't valid.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
When they refer to the crimes of theism, they are not addressing deism. However, when they talk about crimes against reason, it still applies to deism. You are still believing in something, without provocation. Your statement about theism various only between religions. Hindu theism doesn't neccesairly lead to mass murder. But christian, islamic and jewish fundamentalism very well might.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy
if atheism doesn't lead to mass murder, since it doesn't necessarily have somebody commanding them to kill theists or others, and have people listening. Theism doesn't necessarily either. Since a religion's theology based around books, don't necessarily lead to killing and can even lead to pacifism, depending on what the book says and how it is interpreted.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
Your right in observing how it is interperted can make all the difference. But when we say interperted we really mean to say- depending on what parts does the person choose to ignore, and what parts do they choose to put emphasis on. Ultimately, barring a rewrite, the books will always say the same thing. The old testament will always look at imperalism, slavery, and genocide as if it was not only okay but demanded of the jews by god.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy Interpretation doesn't mean ignoring things. Have you ever spoken to a fundamentalist. It is about being consistent and not picking and choosing. Picking and choosing is what religious liberals do. Even the god hates fags fundamentalists don't stone adulterers. But I suppose some people may make some interpretation that allows certain things in the old testament such as killing witches, could happen in theory perhaps.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy The old testament is not very imperialistic.. seriously. Jews live in Israel.. Israel is a TINY piece of land. Islammic imperialism is -huge-.The imperialistic dreams of chrisopher columbus were far bigger. British imperialism.Pretty much every other imperialism is far more large scale than so-called jewish imperialism.In fact, archaeologists now believe that jews were the canaanites, and the conquest written of in the bible never happened.
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
And in that way, no matter how much our civilization advances, so long as there are people who take the bible seriously, it will prevent our moral systems from evolving. Envitably some one (far from everyone but someone) will always go back to that old testament, see those references of indecent conduct, sactioned by the god. And they'll say, "god wants us to stone adulters, liars , and homosexuals". They'll say, "god hates homosexuals". Because its right there.
ghostbuddy 1 year ago
@ghostbuddy
atheist or non theistic ideologies don't need a book initially but in time tend to produce one.. and can be dangerous. Communism was against deism and theism and persecuted them and held people from a better quality of life. Nazism was I suppose not to do with belief in god for or against. But it was non theistic, and caused huge damage and misery. There are obviously good non theistic ideologies too!
jameshanley40 1 year ago
you can only say this of religion and not atheism, because there isn't a term for dogma based around atheism - dogma based around the lack of a belief in a deity. So let's say you have a term for that, call it atheist-dogma. As opposed to religion or theist-dogma. Now are you going to say that communism isn't atheist-dogma, while Christianity is theist-dogma? That atheist-dogma does not motivate anything bad, and that theist-dogma does? and would you have called atheist-dogma religion?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40
No. You can only say this of religion and not atheism because, by definition, there's no such thing as atheist dogma. Communism (or Fascism, or anarchism etc) is not based on the non-belief in a deity. Communism is not necessarily incompatible with religious belief. There is no logical path from atheism to communism. There is, however, a logical path from Christian theism to Christian-dogma. Your distinction between theist/atheist-dogma is a false dichotomy.
HarrynJessie 1 year ago
@HarrynJessie
Forget religious belief. I am talking about Atheism and Theism. Is communism incompatible with theism? Explain how there is no such thing as Atheist Dogma(as in, dogma based around atheism), but there is such a thing as Theist Dogma(dogma based around theism)?
jameshanley40 1 year ago
@jameshanley40 Christianity is theist dogma. Islam is theist dogma. Hinduism... need i go on? Dogmas are, by definition, based on some sort of belief about the world. You cannot have a dogma that is based on the absence of a particular belief. You cannot have, for example, a dogma based on amorality. You cannot have an atheist dogma... Stalinism was incidentally non-theist; it wasn't based on atheism.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
an aspect of communism is not just a lack of belief in god like a lack of belief in vampires. It's a positive belief that there is no god, / an emphasis on it.. Karl Marx saw religion as the opiate of the people. So the atheistic nature of communism is not comparable to that of say Mathematics where belief in a god is irrelevant and arbitrary. Communism is an atheistic dogma requiring belief in no god, that is a belief, positive atheism.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 all you've done is assert that non-belief in God is a necessary condition for communism. You haven't proven anything. Tell me why belief in government by everyone, state control over the economy etc. is predicated upon the non-belief in God or even prevents belief in God.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie I don't have to. What i'm saying, is communism rejects god, one can google it. I don't know enough about it to tell you why. There may theoretically be some forms of communism that reject karl marx's views on religion and are neutral on it, perhaps they've never existed but they may be as much atheistic as mathematics.. i.e. just an absence, or that it's irrelevant.. If you look at communist regimes, it seems all or most have positively taken an anti-religious stance.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 haha, well historically communist regimes have rejected God. But historically communist regimes haven't resembled communism at all. They've been much more like fascist dictatorships. The reason why proponents and dictators of communist regimes have rejected belief in God was because they themselves wanted to fill the void. Perhaps Stalin didn't want to be worshipped - that would be a little too obvious - but he certainly demanded obedience and trust in a rather theistic way.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
the communist manifesto may have anti religion dogma, so that'd be a good reason to say communism is... + the regimes in practice.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 oh that may very well be the case. I did read some of the Manifesto some years ago when studying the Russian Revolution. I can't remember if there was anti-religious sentiment but there very well could be, given Marx's sentiments to religion. But I'd also note that Marx sent his kids to fee-paying schools whilst receiving monetary donations from Engels. So, in a sense, Marx's whole conception of communism was wrapped in contradictions and paradoxes.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie let's not exaggerate, and on an example of what may just be him not living up to his own teachings and exempting himself. Some say many theistic ideologies are paradoxical and wrapped in contradictions,but,.And they still have their tenets.. and philosophies, and I don't think the atheism or anti religiousness in marx's writings and specifically, the communist manifesto, is contradicted. The anti-religious regimes too, AFAIK(and I know little),were not also not anti religious..
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 I was only pointing out that the founder of communism was far from working class. He was bourgeoise with higher aspirations. Communism was founded by a guy whose actions seem to be inconsistent with his beliefs. The point being, just because he was anti-religious and wrote anti-religious sentiment into the Manifesto, doesn't mean belief in God is necessarily incompatible with communism. Nor does it imply that communism is necessarily founded upon anti-theism or atheism.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
was it really inconsistent? wasn't there in communism a proleteriat/elite that have the good life. Let's say it's possible to have a brand of communism that ignores the anti-religious elements of the manifesto. It's theoretical. Marx's communism and the big regimes have all stayed true to marx's anti religious philosophy, so it and they are anti-theistic ideologies. That's the reality of communism. And Marx's philosophy of it.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 the dictatorship of the proletariat was a syptom of the socialist transition period between capitalism and communism. Under pure communism there was no ruling class. Government was run by society. The reality of communism, i fully accept, is completely different to any theoretical version... largely because the theory relies on people being fundamentally "good", which is repeatedly proved wrong. In any case, the most we can say is that regimes have been incedentally atheist.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
if it's in the communist manifesto, that's like the bible of communism. I don't think you can then say it's incidental to it. And Marx's philosophy emphasised it.. and all the big communist regimes emphasised it, that's the reailty of communism.where positive rejection of god/religion has been emphasised.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 i don't really like the analogy to the bible. The Manifesto is nothing like a bible because its merely a starting point. Political ideologies can evolve over time. Religion can't due to God's omniscience. Again I ask you, why have communist regimes been fundamentally anti-religion? Because the dictators wanted to supplant God as their society's unquestionable leader: Castro, Stalin... anyone you care to mention. In reality, communism doesn't exist; just a variant of fascism
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
a manifesto is more than just a starting point, because people will keep going back to it and trying to get to the point which it seeks, and to maintain it. Religion can evolve, for example, islam and judaism have a legal system, that evolves. New doctrines can appear in a religion. by interpretation or a mini revelation.. Different schools of thought can exist. Like any ideology, there are basic principles that tend not to change, and there are others more likely to change
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 OK it's not "merely a starting point" but more of a basis for the theory. I disagree about religion. The Qu'ran, for example, should be read as literally possible because it is the word of God. God's will hasn't changed over the last 1000+ years; but people's have. Any modifications that occur over a period of time mean that a religion - and its offshoots - becomes less like the religion. The opposite is true for political ideologies; they evolve continually over time.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Islam is more than the quran. Any ideology can have a static aspect and an evolving aspect.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 No doubt religion more than just scripture. My point is however that if, for example, you accept the evidence for evolution - thereby rejecting both of the creation stories in Genesis - your religion becomes de facto less like the religion should be in its pure form. For example, I would say that Anglicanism is nothing like true Christianity. Political ideologies are different. They are allowed to evolve over time, and retain their purity, save for a few core principles.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
a story when taken metaphorically, and believed as a metaphor, may not really betray core principles. A religion can have a strong interpretative tradition, you could say for creation that even when it was written it wasn't meant literally, because what was a day on days 1-3 before the sun. Certainly though what political ideologies don't have, are people running to label themselves as capitalist/communist, when their interpretation is a complete mockery of it!!
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 aww.. maybe. I still think that if the Bible, Qu'ran etc. are meant to be fair representations of God's words/will, I doubt God would be deliberately trying to confuse us as to whether he ought to be taken literally or allegorically. My reaction would be to take God at his word, hence to conform to scripture. I certainly do agree with your last sentence. The upshot of all this, anyway, is that even though Marx was anti-theistic, doesn't mean communism is necessarily atheistic.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie I suppose they could just keep the economic part and reject the anti religious part, even if in practice, the big regimes, or almost any communist regime, have not, and the latter is important if looking to condemn because it's the reality of it, the practice of it. But aside from all that. The positively atheistic societies, those rejecting religion, have been responsible for the biggest massacres.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 you want to call those regimes "positive atheist", when really they were "anti-theist". Atheism is just the rejection of God, whereas anti-theism is the positive objection to any god. Those regimes were not based on a non-belief, but on the view that God should be absolutely banished from society. These are two quite different beliefs and that was my original point: you cannot base a society on a non-belief. A society must be based on some positive belief(s).
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Weak atheism is absence of belief in x. it requires no evidence, it's really withholding judgement and not knowing being very unsure. Strong atheism is you believe ~X. You believe X is false. That comes with a burden of proof, it requires evidence. That's positive atheism. Anti-theism means you hate it.. like Hitchens even hates it if it were true.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 atheism is just the non-belief in a god, just as theism is simply the belief in a god. Sure, some atheists will claim there is no God (which I too would tentatively claim). Theists don't have to claim that there is a god; only that it is likely, given the nature of our reality, and that this provides good enough reason to believe. Atheism is the absence of theism, just as amoral implies the absence of morality, or asexual implies the absence of sex in reproduction.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
The Absence of a belief, means you don't know, maybe true maybe not, you withhold judgement. I don't think that's what you mean is it? Look up positive atheism, it does exist. And just like, if a religion says cover up x,y and some people cover up x,y,z and some only x. So too a positively atheistic ideology saying god and religion is false - a delusion, could lead some to say it's bad for society, and some to say let's remove it.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 I really think you're trying to read too much into one word. Atheism means you don't believe in (the existence of) god. It's just the opposite of theism. Now, atheism could i guess be seen as an umbrella system of non-theist views (i.e agnosticism, atheism and "positive atheism"). I'd ask you this: what is the actual difference between, say, an agnostic - who in principle remains 50/50 on the existence of god - and an atheist who doesn't believe in god? I'd say nothing.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
you haven't have it both ways saying zealous follower of a positively atheistic ideology, is led by something else, whereas a zealous theist is not. Really SH is right, there is no "religion" it's like sport, there are violent ones and peaceful ones. It's a vicious immoral sick over-generalization that Hitchens and Dawkins foolishly use.. But Sam Harris is decent enough to not use and to criticise those that do for their foolishness.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 I can't really see how I'm having it both ways. A society which wanted to remove all religion is not dissimilar to a theocracy, in which is religious freedom is banned, except you'd be going one religion further. It's anti-theist. Not atheist. But again I'd ask you: name me a regime which was motivated to do something awful because it was an aetheistic society.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie all 3 - Hitch, RD and SH - say that faith is a bad way to organise one's life or a society. Sure, there are some religious faiths which are less violent, such as Janeism or Buddhism, than others, such as Christiannity or Islam. The point they ALL make, however, is that no-one, ever, in the history of the world, has been motivated by atheism to do bad things... whereas there are innumerable examples of people doing bad things in the name of religion.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie But saying you don't know you're withholding judgement, you're unwilling to commit, is far more honest than saying the more confident sounding "I DON'T BELIEVE". 'cos what you really mean is "I don't believe it's true and I don't believe it's false" and if you mean that and just say "I don't believe", then it's misleading and you're making out to have a stronger position than you have. And BTW, positive atheism DOES exist as weak does. So yes, Atheism is an umbrella term.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 actually it's far more honest, if there's no reason to believe it, to call oneself an atheist. If there is no reason to believe in God; if there's no evidence or logical necessity, as far as I can tell, then clearly it's far more honest to say that I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in the existence God, rather than say I'm ucommitted either way - which, by the way, is to be in a 50/50 position. I don't think we really have a disagreement on "agnosticism" based on your response.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
It's not like uncommitted to the belief is 50/50. and committed to it is 51+/49. You could be uncommitted at 70%. If there's a good chance something is false then you're not sure, you can be uncommitted. An agnostic -can- hedge his bets, I think many do. Sometimes people in a desperate situation think may pray just case, whereas if they were sure he doesn't exist then they wouldn't bother.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Sometimes in a religion that requires commitment, people may not be sure enough to just throw life enjoyment away, and they partially commit. So if there is a god they've done just enough.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
you are conflating positive atheism with positive atheistic ideology.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
Agnosticism actually means we can't know things for sure, so you could be an Agnostic theist. But what you mean is Colloquially. Colloquially agnostic means withhold judgement, don't know. I don't think it means 50/50/ but it means unwilling to commit.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 this is why I don't like the term "agnostic". It muddies the water. If you take RD's scale of religiosity, there are 7 steps from what might be called "positive theist" to "positive atheist". In reality, most atheists will sit on the step just before positive atheism - that we see no reason to believe in the existence of a deity but that there is still a possibility, albeit remote, that one could exist - but the fact is we are atheists because we don't believe in God.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
No. That is confusion. I haven't read RD's steps, and he's not a philosopher, but you are missing key steps. Let's agree throw away the idea of absolute certitude. The step below that would be being SURE that there is no god. That's positive atheism.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 so what if he's not a philosopher? I think his scale is rather instructive. You can't get rid of certitude because plenty of religious people would claim it. There's no confusion. I'm an atheist who is as certain about there being no God as I am certain about evolution or the laws of physics. In principle I know there is still the possibility that God does exist but I'm not about to organise my life with that in mind.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
that whole "so what if he's not a philosopher" comment you make seems to be completely arguing a strawman. I'm not telling you to have absolute certitude, i'm not telling you to organize your life around religion. And i'm not saying that many religious believers do not have absolute certitude. On the contrary many do, but that's obvious and not the discussion we've been having.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jameshanley40 I was merely responding to your proposition that we "agree [to] throw away the idea of absolute certitude". I was making the point that while most atheists would not claim absolute certitude, most theists would and so there is an imbalance on the scale of religiosity.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
You seem to be hopelessly blind to the fact that you are over-generalizing when saying religion led to x, some do, some don't. But then you don't say ideas lead to violence. I could accept a form of communism could exist that isn't atheist despite the manifesto, but for you that's enough to say communism doesn't lead to atheism. Yet you don't give that luxury to religion. Yet religions actually exist that are not violent. And you don't criticise IDEAS for leading to violence.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 I criticise all ideas, taken on faith, when they cause wars. Like I said several times: Stalin and Hitler committed horrendous crimes in the name of political ideologies (or other "ideas"); not religion. The common factor between those regimes and modern-day Al Qaeda, however, is FAITH. I don't say that religion invariably leads to violence. I do say that there is a logical path between theism and violence but there is no such path between atheism and violence.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago
@HarrynJessie
so yes. Hitler was not motivated by atheism. But communism from its core text, so it's theory, to its practice, those big regimes, have all been motivated by communism, in their anti religiousness. Atheism is a positive belief, and it it itself, LIKE THEISM ITSELF, does not necessary lead to violence. The book could say anything. Could be interpreted differently. Even islam could be a religion of peace. COULD. But in theory it's hard and in practice it largely isn't.
jameshanley40 8 months ago
@jameshanley40 If we were to say that religion should have no influence on public decision-making, and thereby ban or curtail religious freedom, this would be a policy motivated by anti-theis, not atheism. I still can't see how anyone could say, "well, I don't believe in God and I'm going to be violent or hateful, for that reason". In any example we would care to mention, there will be some other motivating belief in play... it may be anti-theist; but that's as close as it can get.
HarrynJessie 8 months ago