David Bentley Hart - The new atheists and an ugly God

[astroboomboy]

On all videos discussing atheism, religious people are always trying to create a connection between communism and atheism. It is merely a logical fallacy, as communism was not grounded on atheism, but on a dogmatic ideology. This is much closer to religion. Every religion is dogmatic, and every religion has an ideology (even though this changes as power changes).

[jorgekluney]

Ubiwator has been proved wrong. But watch her squirm in attempting to shoe horn these quotes to alleviate any pressure put on atheism.

[astroboomboy]

@jorgekluney Atheism is nothing, it is a non-belief, and is not positivistic; hence, you can't derive action from it. If I act inhumane and I am an atheist it can't have anything to do with me being atheist, because atheism does not give me anything to believe in. Religion, like communism, is an ideology. Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot where ideologues, like religious people. Now try again.

[jorgekluney]

@astroboomboy You're wrong. You saying it doesn't make it so. Atheism is a belief with respects to a certain metaphysics of reality. If one is an atheist one can certainly claim "there is no equal dignity of human beings... I can use them for whatever purpose I wish". Waiving off Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot do not help your cause-their atheism very much influenced their view of humanity and they acted accordingly. Try again.

[astroboomboy]

@jorgekluney That's a religious view. Those that are non-religious are viewed as going to hell, being inferior, etc. Atheism does not entail any metaphysics, it is just non-belief. If atheism is metaphysical, it would state that all humans are of the same matter, so they are completely equal (but this is a logical fallacy as atheism, like I have pointed out, is only non-belief). In either case, all these dictators ruled in countries with a majority of religious people that did not stop them

[astroboomboy]

@jorgekluney You may wish that atheism entails certain metaphysics, but that does not make it so. There are atheist nihilists, humanists, spiritualists, fatalist, materialist, physicalist, etc. Atheism does not entail one or the other of these views. Religion however has a clear dogma (bible, quran, Avestan, etc). Now try again.

[jorgekluney]

@astroboomboy It's not a matter of what I wish or not:atheism entails a certain metaphysics. That's not debatable. You made the error in thinking a negative belief is the same as a non belief, and that's foolish. My negative belief that there is no beer in the fridge could certainly motivate a behavior: go to the store and buy more. So clearly a negative belief can still impact behavior. The fact that you'd make such a fundamental mistake with respects to negative and non beliefs is very odd

[astroboomboy]

@jorgekluney So you're comparing the belief in god with the belief that there is beer in your fridge? Well, I guess it's a good comparison, but beer is much more important.

[jorgekluney]

@astroboomboy Not certain how you came to that conclusion. Either you got what I was saying and you're making a joke (ha....ha). Or, you really think that the comparison was with God's existence... In that case: :(

[astroboomboy]

@jorgekluney You made that comparison, which is just a really bad argument for action and the belief in god. A belief that there is no beer in the fridge is not negative, I can measure it: there is beer, or not beer, and if I want beer I get more. It doesn't apply to god. I can't say, ok there is no god, therefore I will go get some god.

[jorgekluney]

@astroboomboy So you didn't get it. Okay: you said atheism is a non-belief (whatever that is) & since it has no positive content it can't motivate actions (such as Stalin or Mao, despite their being atheists). "I don't believe in God". I said, "I don't believe there is beer in the fridge" is the same (both negative beliefs).But, clearly it can motivate action "I'm going to buy beer". So, a negative belief (since 'nonbelief' is hogwash) can motivate actions.Beliefs are representational states.

[astroboomboy]

@jorgekluney Do you believe in the Aphrodite? And if you don't, then is your heart filled with hate? Can you never know love? Do you believe in Buddha? And if you don't, does that make you kill?

[Ubiwator]

As long as the evidence for a god is exactly zero, all arguments derived from religion can be rightly ignored. Especially when they have such terrible consequences. When was the last time someone strapped on a bomb and blew themselves up, shouting "Praise Richard Dawkins!"?

[jorgekluney]

@Ubiwator Seriously? Mao, Stalin. You idiot.

[Ubiwator]

@jorgekluney I think you need to brush up on your history, sir. Neither of those people's actions had anything to do with atheism. Any opposition towards religion on their part was solely because it threatened the authority of their ideology. In fact, Communism became a quasi religion in those nations.

[jorgekluney]

@Ubiwator That's convenient.... waive off any criticism with "But that had NOTHING to do with their atheism". Sure.... 

[Ubiwator]

@jorgekluney There is no logical pathway from not believing in a deity (=atheism) to any action at all. It has neither commandments, nor dogma or imperatives. Much unlike religion it demands no conversions or killing of unbelievers, no sacrifices or worship (See, the Bible or Koran for lots of gruesome examples of those). Therefore the fact that Mao or Stalin may have been atheists means pretty much nothing regarding their actions in their lifetime.

[jorgekluney]

@Ubiwator Mao:"I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one’s actions has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others. . . . [People like me want to] satisfy our hearts to the full and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me. . . . I have my desire and act on it". You're wrong, Ubiwator. Clear as day in his own quote

[jorgekluney]

@Ubiwator how about from Mussolini: ""If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable."

[astroboomboy]

@Ubiwator You are right. People tend to think that atheism entails a view of life, and it does not. And this jorgenkluney seems to think that there is a difference between ideology and religion. Religion is ideology.

[olegkikin]

bible is hardly an epitome of morality.

"For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'" -- Matthew 15:4

[praxus]

@alangnixon No one denies that atheists have a moral sense. The question is, how can you ground morality such that it can be said to be objective and true? Hume pointed out that you cannot get an ought from an is. That moral sentiments developed through some evolutionary process does not prove you ought to follow those sentiments, or, indeed, that those sentiments are good or just, etc. Ethics belongs to the realm of philosophy, not evolutionary science.

[jadapac43]

@praxus We ought to follow them because that's what we are taught to do. As humans we need social rules to tell us how to behave with other humans. It is as much part of us as the craving for sex. We crave social acceptance, and to be socially accepted you need to follow social rules (which are vital to society). This is why many morals that we posess are illustrated in law and have always been.

[FawkesUniverse]

fair enough, what i mean by systems you got to examine religion how alll of them are set up they, all have a things set up in a way that seems to do alot of talking and indoctrination of children so they can keep people under the delusion that there is a all knowing god that created you and loves you, they explain things in a way that dodges the whole part about evidence and data. this is what i mean by "system"

[alangnixon]

We have a right to reject your God and we are not ignorant for doing so. The evidence is on our side.

Dawkins is attacking fundamentalism. This is not surprising considering the stance of fundamentalists on Science and Atheism. Fundamentalisms are the most extreme and dangerous movements from an Atheist perspective . Therefore I think it can be argued that Dawkins is aiming at the correct target.

[jorgekluney]

@alangnixon Okay, let's say that is true. Say that fundamentalism (whatever is meant by that) is truly this terrible thing. However, Dawkins own view on memes negates any notion of wilfull acceptance of this belief. So many fundamentalists are wrong and terrible to the core, but so what? Genetics has predisposed them to these flights of fancy. Dawkins would say we are puppets to our genes, so there's no proper or improper action. There's no sense of duty, in his view, that is being violated.

[alangnixon]

@jorgekluney People keep trying to insinuate that Atheists have no moral grounds for opposing 'evil'. This is just simply untrue. Morals don't come from religion or God, they come from our genetic history as social creatures, empathy, parenting and social rules (socialisation). In short Atheists have been found to have the same basic rules of fairness as nearly every other human. Some people violate these rules (religious or non-religious) and it is everyone's duty to point it out.

[alangnixon]

We resent those things too, but that is not the general reason for lack of belief. The evidence is the main issue. Simply put, we see no reason or evidence to believe in your God or any other and we do not believe that the problems of the world are related to your God at all. You need to do some research, it is highly unlikely that Dawkin's readership are uneducated considering the stats we have on Atheism (most Atheists are highly educated).

[FawkesUniverse]

lol people like this cannot get past the fact there are poeple out there that do not have a religion/belief! Atheism is simply a default position of not having a dogmatic beliefe system/religion and the deities that come with such systems!

Dawkins has read all these holy books and has been talking about this shit for a very long time now, im guessing this guy in the video did not do his home work!

[jorgekluney]

@FawkesUniverse In all fairness, Bentley Hart is certainly more trained on the topic than Dawkins. Dawkins book does flounder philosophically. But wouldn't you admit that atheism is at least more than not having a position? It makes a metaphyiscal statement about reality - claiming that God does not exist. Atheism is indeed a belief. It's a belief in the non existence of God. I don't see that as being such a radical statement.

[FawkesUniverse]

@jorgekluney Problem with calling atheism a belief is that is implies that its some sort of religion/faith system,sure it (atheism) does say "god" doesn't exist but this comes from a point of view where atheists like to have testable evidence and data before believing in something like a "god".So I would be careful with throwing out the"atheism is a belief" line with out thinking about the position the atheists like me are coming from.We simply want evidence and data before we believe anything.

[jorgekluney]

@FawkesUniverse Not all beliefs are "systems" (whatever is meant by that). You believe that other minds exist, that's there's a world "out there" as opposed to being a solipsist. You believe the universe is orderly/rational (temporally and spatially). You believe that beliefs shouldn't held in the absence of strong evidence. All of these you believe. Not all of them are a sort of "system". All of them lacking evidence in the way you structure it: testable scientific evidence.

[alangnixon]

@jorgekluney But these things are empirically testable, we observe them when we interact with others, by the fact that we have survived long enough to evolve and our observation that humans hold unfounded positions. We 'believe' them because they are the best explanation we have based on the evidence. God does not fit this criteria. 'God' is a non-answer that has no necessity. We have better answers in some cases (most of science) and no or little evidence in others (big bang or abiogenesis).

[Snarkathon]

The 'news' is that its supposed to be the word of god. OT + NT are gods words. Why dont you follow it to the letter? Because youre 'allowed' to interpret, make allegories appear as the individual sees them. Not only do no 2 bibles match, no 2 'theologians' interpretations match. What a pompous prick DBH is.