All I mean to say is that a justifiable comparison can be made between the Soviet Bolsheviks and those atheists now preaching “religion poisons everything”; the two groups made and are making similar claims. Of course, there are also important distinctions to be made as well, as you have correctly pointed out. Similarly, to be fair in a way that Hitchens seem unwilling to acknowledge, the same type of justifiable comparisons and important distinctions are there to be made between Muslims who in the name of their religion advocate the murder of apostates and the multitude of other religious people (Muslims included) who speak at length against violence - also in the name of their religion.
While I do not personally think that religion poisons “everything,” I do think that it poisons a great deal, and that there is nothing whatsoever that religion has ever done that is any good. Religion does much bad and doesn’t do anyone any good. I see no meaningful connection, of any sort, between Soviet Bolsheviks who just happened to be atheists and Muslims who blew themselves up because of their particular religious beliefs that compelled them to do so.
Riley - 03 January 2008 08:49 AM
The Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin’s rule abused a great number of religious people explicitly in the name of a similar world-view claim concerning religion.
Much propaganda by theists tauts this absurdity. Don’t by into it. The Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin’s rule did nothing as a result of their “atheism.” “Atheism” is a lack of a thing. A person can not do something because of something that they do not believe. People do things because of what they do believe. The “explicitly in the name of” part that you underlined is something that has been placed there superficially for more sinister and dishonest theistic purposes.
George, I disagree. I’m reasonably familiar with the oppressive history of the Soviets. My father escaped in 1959 from the German ‘Democratic’ Republic after his big mouth had made his life dangerous. But as long as the rich don’t share the wealth (which most inherited in the first place) poor people will try to take if from them. What Marx observed was a cruel practice of exploitation that was crying out for a revolution. Some of his philosophical ideas, especially the Hegelian notions, were false, but to call his analysis bullshit misses the mark by a very wide margin.
moreover,
I find that the fundamental problem with Marx’s communism ideal is the same as with the lunacy taught by Jesus, for example: our minds are not a tabula rasa when we are born, and we cannot be re-educated according to some bogus ideas with a climax to be found in a haven on earth or a government run by the “people.” The principal ideas of Christianity and Communism are equally false, and I don’t therefore care much for any of their other possible hidden wisdom.
[...] there is nothing whatsoever that religion has ever done that is any good. Religion does much bad and doesn’t do anyone any good.
erasmusinfinity, to proclaim this opinion as a fact without sufficient evidence is dogmatic.
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 01:57 PM
Riley - 03 January 2008 08:49 AM
The Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin’s rule abused a great number of religious people explicitly in the name of a similar world-view claim concerning religion.
Much propaganda by theists tauts this absurdity. Don’t [buy] into it. The Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin’s rule did nothing as a result of their “atheism.” “Atheism” is a lack of a thing.
I agree! The Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin’s rule did no thing because of their “atheism” (i.e. their lack of belief in a god). But you’ve missed the essential distinction I’ve made between “atheism” (a lack of a thing) and an atheist movement which adopts a belief, for instance the belief that religion poisons everything. By definition, atheism should be as you say it is: just a non-belief, but atheist activists aren’t apparently satisfied to leave it at that.
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 01:57 PM
A person can not do something because of something that they do not believe. People do things because of what they do believe. The “explicitly in the name of” part that you underlined is something that has been placed there superficially for more sinister and dishonest theistic purposes.
Yes, people don’t kill in the name of “a lack of a thing”, but they do kill to defend their strongly held beliefs, and they definitely have killed in order to eradicate society of something they consider to be a “virus”, especially when they publicly assert that this virus is poisoning everything. And now, under the banner of atheism, people are claiming they believe just that.
There is now a prominent movement of atheists and atheist organizations proclaiming passionately their belief that the world would necessarily be a better place if only religion were not in it. Maybe that belief is true, maybe it’s not. But this is the same claim that the Bolshevik Soviets made and that is the same belief that they explicitly used to rationalize murdering and enslaving a great many religious people. That’s the connection I can’t deny to the theists.
If prominent atheists and people like yourself would stop making these hard-to-defend claims which go way beyond the simple atheist position that there is no god, then the comparison would not be reasonable. As it is however, they have a reasonable basis to point out connections they observe between violent anti-religion atheist movements and anti-religion atheist movements in general. Or at least they have no less a reasonable basis than those who point out a connection between violent religious movements and religious movements in general.
I advocate we condemn dogma wherever we find it and be satisfied to leave it at that.
[...] there is nothing whatsoever that religion has ever done that is any good. Religion does much bad and doesn’t do anyone any good.
erasmusinfinity, to proclaim this opinion as a fact without sufficient evidence is dogmatic.
These are facts:
Fact #1 - There is no good that can be attributed exclusively to religion.
Fact #2 - There is much bad that can be attributed as the direct cause of religion.
Would you say that your disagreement is an opinion that you are expressing without sufficient evidence?
Riley - 03 January 2008 08:49 AM
By definition, atheism should be is as you say it is: just a non-belief, but atheist activists aren’t apparently satisfied to leave it at that.
Many “atheist activists” are responding to christian dogmatists who are not satisfied to just leave it at that.
Riley - 03 January 2008 08:49 AM
I advocate we condemn dogma wherever we find it and be satisfied to leave it at that.
I do too. This is why I condemn religion for the dogma that it fundamentally is. I am satisfied to leave it at that.
Fact #1 - There is no good that can be attributed exclusively to religion.
1) A person nearing death has their emotional suffering eased by a belief that they will join loved ones in heaven.
2) A belief in Karma leads people to do good deeds when they otherwise would not.
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 03:24 PM
Fact #2 - There is much bad that can be attributed as the direct cause of religion.
Yes. But you are guilty of generalizing. Those beliefs and practices exclusively attributable to a particular religion are not a necessary part of religion in general.
.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that I know you are necessarily wrong in your final assessment about religion. I’m just saying there is insufficient evidence for you to assert your opinion as fact, especially your opinion that “there is nothing whatsoever that religion has ever done that is any good”.
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 03:24 PM
Riley - 03 January 2008 08:49 AM
By definition, atheism should be is as you say it is: just a non-belief, but atheist activists aren’t apparently satisfied to leave it at that.
Many “atheist activists” are responding to christian dogmatists who are not satisfied to just leave it at that.
And that’s the problem. Atheist activists are behaving like Christian dogmatists in this regard. By making belief claims of our own instead of simply condemning religion for the dogma that it fundamentally is, we are stepping out of line and unnecessarily opening ourselves up to comparison with other anti-religion atheist movements such as the Bolshevik movement in the Soviet Union.
It is unrealistic to expect much good to flow from false assumptions and ludicrously arbitrary dogma.
Two minuses making a plus works in mathematics but is a hazardous strategy in life.
I insist that our chances for peace, coexistence, and ultimately survival on this planet are hindered by proclaiming that false, arbitrary dogma were true and offered solid guidance for human interaction.
We have to get away from accepting childish false imaginations as true and normative.
I’m reminded of the old philosophical joke about the drunk who is looking for his house keys under a street lantern. A helpful stranger asks him whether this is where he lost the keys. He replies, “No, but at least there is light here!”
Similarly, people fool themselves with the subjective impression that they can obtain religious ‘knowledge’ because their own seducible mind suggests they can. They are mistaken, and the gazillon contradictory neural exitations masquerading as religious revelations attest to that fact.
Fact #1 - when you say “exclusively”, what exactly do you mean?
Which lead to
Fact #2 - are these opposites? Is #2 saying there is much bad that can be shown exclusively to be the result of religion?
Here I am thinking other pressures from politics, environment, tribal disputes etc.
Also, it appears you are making a rather specific claim but still use a term such as “much bad”.
Fact #1 - I mean that which is not most logically attributed to something other than religion.
Fact #2 - Are not politics, environment, tribal disputes, etc. intrinsic features of religion? Also, can someone truly be a jihadist without their religion? A suicide bomber, yes. But a suicide bomber who bombs, in their own words, for the sake of their belief that allah wants them to? (A fact that is inseparable from their religious belief.)
Of course they are not opposites. There is a vast difference between the cherry picking that might be used in attempts to counter fact #1 and the sort of rotten apple picking involved in fact #2. Religion entirely separate from the cherries (Ie. humanists and other non-theists can and do build wonderful architecture, works of art, and engage in various ethical causes) and is inseparable from the rotten apples (Ie. jihad can only be carried out by a muslim.)
1) A person nearing death has their emotional suffering eased by a belief that they will join loved ones in heaven.
Death is not a failure. It is natural and OK. And knowledge of death does not necessarily lead to suffering. Fantasies about joining loved ones in heaven do not ease emotional suffering. A deliberate self-delusion about ones impending death illustrates a view that dying is something horrible. Indeed, a source of suffering that is based on the same religious conception of living and dying that is supposed to ease.
Riley - 03 January 2008 03:47 PM
2) A belief in Karma leads people to do good deeds when they otherwise would not.
If they would do these “good deeds” believing in a religious sort of karma, then they would do them if they did not believe in this sort of karma. The golden rule is not religious.
Riley - 03 January 2008 03:47 PM
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 03:24 PM
Fact #2 - There is much bad that can be attributed as the direct cause of religion.
Yes. But you are guilty of generalizing. Those beliefs and practices exclusively attributable to a particular religion are not a necessary part of religion in general.
I am not generalizing. I said “much” bad. There is also “much” in religion that is benign.
Riley - 03 January 2008 03:47 PM
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that I know you are necessarily wrong in your final assessment about religion. I’m just saying there is insufficient evidence for you to assert your opinion as fact, especially your opinion that “there is nothing whatsoever that religion has ever done that is any good”.
Facts are facts. They speak for themselves.
Riley - 03 January 2008 08:49 AM
Atheist activists are behaving like Christian dogmatists in this regard. By making belief claims of our own instead of simply condemning religion for the dogma that it fundamentally is, we are stepping out of line and unnecessarily opening ourselves up to comparison with other anti-religion atheist movements such as the Bolshevik movement in the Soviet Union.
I agree in the sense that some atheist activists behave rudely, with chips on their shoulders and in ways that will not achieve much for anyone. My fundamental issues are with the notions that counter-dogma is a form of dogma, which it is not, and the idea that atheism can be equated with any sort of behavior at all. Particularly of the slanderous sort. I hear enough of that trash talk from the likes of Pope Ratzinger and Osama Bin Laden.
Hitchens talks firmly and questionably offensively, but I have never seen him call for any sort of violent action with regards to religion or atheism. On the contrary, I have heard him speak at length against violence- condemning religion for it.
I’m not sure if this would apply, but…
This is a good point zarcus. I won’t concede that he is condoning violent action here but, whatever he means, it is not good of him to allow himself to have his opinion equated with that of a jihadist. The big question is “what is he hoping to do (and for us to do) in order to ‘destroy’ his enemy?” Is he speaking about fighting intellectually, or is he talking about using his fists. Not a violent action I should hope.
I would not be surprised if he came out with a promotion of violence in the near future, considering his views on the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. Which I absolutely do not agree with him about. You may just be swaying me yet in my perspective of Christopher Hitchens.
I never said that I saw religion as the only source of evil, nor that atheists are not capable of horrible things.
1) A person nearing death has their emotional suffering eased by a belief that they will join loved ones in heaven.
Fantasies about joining loved ones in heaven do not ease emotional suffering.
On what basis do you claim to know one way or the other?
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 05:22 PM
Riley - 03 January 2008 03:47 PM
2) A belief in Karma leads people to do good deeds when they otherwise would not.
If they would do these “good deeds” believing in a religious sort of karma, then they would do them if they did not believe in this sort of karma.
Again, on what basis do you claim to know one way or the other? Karma is not the “golden rule”. Karma involves the promise of a reward and the threat of a punishment.
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 05:22 PM
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 03:24 PM
Fact #2 - There is much bad that can be attributed as the direct cause of religion.
Riley - 03 January 2008 03:47 PM
Yes. But you are guilty of generalizing. Those beliefs and practices exclusively attributable to a particular religion are not a necessary part of religion in general.
I am not generalizing. I said “much” bad. There is also “much” in religion that is benign.
If you cite an example of a ‘bad’ that is uniquely attributed to a specific religion, but is not a necessary element of religion in general, and then generalize that ‘bad’ to all religion, you are guilty of generalizing. You didn’t do this, so I’m admittedly jumping the gun. My bad.
Can you name a ‘bad’ that can be attributed to religion and that is also a necessary aspect of religion in general?
I can imagine a religion with beliefs that are at worst entirely benign. Maybe such a religion is only possible in theory, but I certainly wouldn’t make the claim that it was in fact impossible without evidence. Where are your facts? All I’m getting from you are assertions to facts, not the facts themselves.
On what basis do you claim to know one way or the other?
Are you asking what basis I have for claiming to know that they will not see their relatives after they die? (1)
Or, why their suffering about dying is not genuinely eased by religion? (2)
1. I know that they will not see their relatives when they die because they will be dead.
2. Their suffering will not be meaningfully eased because their religion caused their suffering to begin with.
Riley - 03 January 2008 03:47 PM
Again, on what basis do you claim to know one way or the other? Karma is not the golden rule. Karma involves the belief in a reward and the threat of a punishment in the next life - it’s not the same as the “golden rule”.
The burden of proof is on you because you are the one claiming that belief in Karma can keep someone from doing wrong. My assumption about a hidden “golden rule” is at least as good as yours that Karma has nothing to do with the “golden rule.” Regardless, you have not established that Karma, in and of itself and without any possible connection to anything else, has ever been a cause for “good” behavior.
Riley - 03 January 2008 03:47 PM
Can you name a ‘bad’ that can be attributed to religion and that is also a necessary aspect of religion in general?
I did not say that there was a ‘bad’ that is a necessary aspect of religion in general. I only said that there was no good that can be attributed exclusively to religion and that there is much bad that can only be attributed as the direct cause of religion. If we wish to infer from this that religion, in general, is bad then that would not be all together irrational.
