I had assumed that those quotes came from Hitchens and not the other three. Hitchens has some exceptionally witty arguments. But that’s his best point isn’t it- his wit.
He has always rubbed me wrong with regard to his misguided beliefs about the Iraq & Afghanistan being wars for democracy and secular freedom. He is as deluded as Bush to think that “they hate us for our freedom” just as he is to think that there are secularists in charge of the corporate war machine. And if he wants to hurt anyone, then he is most certainly as bad as the very worst thing that he criticizes.
Jackson wrote:
I find this similar to Sam Harris’ unrealistic suggestion that we not use the word atheist. It’s remarkably unrealistic coming from a group whose ads ask us to join the ‘reality-based community’.
Actually, I think Sam Harris’ suggestion that we not use the term “atheist” is right-on. But I agree with you that it’s probably not realistic to think we will stop using the term. Tom Flynn’s assertion that we should not participate in traditionally religious celebrations is probably unrealistic too, yes, but more importantly in my opinion it’s not a good idea (strategically speaking) to begin with.
Sam is right to note that the secular movement is hindered by use of the term “atheist”. \
As we know, Sam Harris gave the talk at the 2007 conference of [Atheist Alliance International] (AAI 07) and suggested that we shouldn’t use the word ‘atheist’. I still don’t know if he was serious or whether this was a useful, attention-getting rhetorical device to talk about atheism.
He must have been serious in some respect. He has defended it more than once sense then. I’m still trying to decide if he meant that we just weren’t supposed to use the word (or any similarly functioning word) or if he meant that we should not organize.
I don’t think this is about rational as much as effective atheism.
Arguing with Hitchens about style is futile because pompous hostility and an arrogant show of his perceived mental superiority is his bloody trade mark.
Dennett has said (on POI) that he works closely with religious students and has respectful conversations all the time.
Harris is harsher in writing than when he speaks. I heard him in Boulder and found him to be thoughtful, respectful, not playing for effect.
I’ll repeat what I said before: Some people will always be offended, and how could it not be so?! Folks like us point out - whether politely or with gusto - that they cling to false mythologies. Some will curse us and fight us, some will at some point realize that we have a point.
Sure, civility has its merits, but so has shock value. I despise Hitchens sycophantic political views (the Right pays for his Martinis at the Ritz, how else could you explain that a self proclaimed intellectual lip-syncs with G.W. Bush and his team of professional liers). But I will always treasure his trashing of the vile nun from Albania and the glorious title he chose for the book: The Missionary Position. People really needed to be shaken, not just stirred, to come to their senses with regard to “Mother” Theresa. Contrary to popular myth, she only served her weird god, and not so much people.
Hitchens did a number on her, and I’m grateful: that’s effective, too, in its own way.
As for those who’ll tell the likes of me to burn in hell: ignore them or use them for debate target practice. Most likely you will not change their fucked up minds.
[quote author="erasmusinfinity"]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?
[quote author="erasmusinfinity"]Their suffering will not be meaningfully eased because their religion caused their suffering to begin with.
Again, I would guess that you have insufficient evidence to assert that you know that their “suffering will not be meaningfully eased” and that “religion caused their suffering to begin with”. Moreover, you’ve shifted the premise of “Fact#1” away from the claim that “there is no good” to the claim that “the net result is not good” ... it’s a different claim.
My response was to your original “Fact#1” claim that: “There is no good that can be attributed exclusively to religion.”
The feeling that “life has a purpose” has been shown to mitigate the emotional suffering associated with facing death. Lots of published literature supports this. For those people that are otherwise unable to feel that their life has purpose without their belief that “death is not the end”, this relief from suffering (this ‘good’) is exclusively attributable to that particular religious belief. It’s not necessary for the belief to be true.
I could be wrong. Maybe everyone is capable of feeling that their life has purpose without needing to resort to beliefs based on insufficient evidence. The only thing I’m fairly sure about is that no one yet knows for sure; more evidence is needed before asserting definitively one way or the other. Maybe like universal literacy, it is possible to achieve in theory but not in practice.
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.
All I’m claiming is that there remains reasonable and unexamined possibilities that cast doubt onto your claim to facts.
On average, is a person who believes with certainty that she will eventually be rewarded for good deeds and punished for bad deeds, more likely to do good deeds and less likely to commit bad deeds than another person who does not believe they will be punished or rewarded? I don’t know, but there’s good reason to believe that they might. The burden is upon you to provide evidence that they are not more likely before you assert your opinion in this matter as a fact.
erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 06:41 PM
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 is much bad that can only be attributed as the direct cause of religion.
There is much bad that can only be attributed as the direct cause of A particular religion, probably, but are they necessary attributes OF religion? I don’t think so. At the very least that’s yet to be proven, and that’s my point. Your “Fact #2” relies I think (I don’t know because you haven’t actually defended it) on generalizing the ‘bad’ acts of specific religions to all religion. At best I think you can claim your “Fact#2” applies to a specific religion. For example, certain Islamic sects encourage female genital mutilation, and as such that is one example of a ‘bad’ directly attributed to those Islamic religion sects. Genital mutilation however is not a necessary component of “religion”; it’s not even a necessary component of Islam.
I could be wrong. Maybe you do have evidence to support your “fact #2” as a fact, but I’ve yet to see it. All I’m claiming here is that there is insufficient evidence to support your claims and some reason to doubt your claims.
--------------------------------
To sum up:
--------------------------------
Specific practices of specific religions are not generalizable to all religion. In my opinion, the only absolutely necessary component of religion is that there be a world-view based on a strongly held unfounded belief. But such world-view beliefs are not necessarily a particular problem. For example, a religion need not be anything more than a strongly held benign world-view like the unfounded Deistic belief in a “Nature’s God”. The problems occur when people start asserting that their unfounded beliefs are facts and using them to support other arguments. In other words, the problems occur when unfounded beliefs become dogma. But dogma is not a necessary component of all religion, and it is not unique to religion. Yes, religious beliefs do often fester into dogma in the minds of many people holding such beliefs, but not necessarily so. And yes, in cases when a religious belief system becomes part of a government, dogma is almost always the result. But in both cases religion is just a common carrier of the disease; dogma IS the disease. To primarily focus on religion is dangerous because it distracts attention away from the underlying causes of dogma. For instance, political movements in general, not just religious movements, seem to be highly susceptible to infection by dogma. Let’s find out what is causing the dogma, in order to get at the dogma itself.
That’s my world view. I’ve said everything I can say on this issue. cheers.
First Krauss, now Kurtz. Really, really nice guys. Why not change the name from Center for Inquiry to Center for Being Nice? I.Q. is controversial, and “M.Q. (moral quotient)” is important? And psychopaths (or at least some) behave the way they do due to a defect in nurturing? And there is the rest of the show: yeah, we return the $10 we borrowed from a friend so that we don’t become unpopular and because moral sense is a mere product of evolution, but there is the “other” reason: THE CONSCIENCE! What is this mysterious thing called the “conscience” that obeys the mysterious laws of moral realism? Is this not “also” just part of the product of evolution? How could it be? Evolution is blind, conscience is, well, you kind of have to have a high M.Q. to get the point. Really inspiring episode. (Flynn’s absolutely horrifying comment regarding Christmas was probably included in this episode to balance Kurtz’s moral romanticism.)
Speaking of ethics, wouldn’t it be safe or reasonable to say that really honestely working to be nice to others whether they deserve it or not, contributes to expanding oneself, since being nice can be a challenge sometimes if not most, but not being so nice can takes no effort whatsoever? also being nice, ethical --I wouldn’t say moral because moral as far as i am concerned is very corrupt word-- builds and contributes to society/community in a positive way. Isn’t that a good basic enough of a reason to keep it in perspective? One can link it to self control and self control is precisely what sets us apart from the animals (don’t get me wrong anyone, I am an animal lover), self control is what got us here. I personally think being ethical with a capital E has the potential of taking mankind to heights we have yet to reach or experience since ethics are hewn into every aspect of our existence?
In regard to Hitchens supporting the war, I’m thinking his doing so might have to do with the fact he has been naturalized citizen last year (nothing wrong with displaying some patriotism even when it’s fake, and who can blame him? bush is fake)? the guy is too freaking aware not to see beyond the bush scheme. Or maybe, just like the rest of us, he is biased enough to claim blindness there as any of us would in other areas? or can one safely assert that everyone has a price including him?
In regard to Christmas celebrations, I think an atheist who does celebrate Xmas simply does out of fear of being left out during those times, nothing more. And it kind of sucks to be out kind of looking in knowing that few billions of people are out there, at it full throttle, as far as celebrations are are concerned. Beside Christ wasn’t even born in Christmas, I am being told His birthday has been moved there to overshadow pre-existing different pagan celebrations. So is Xmas really Xmas regardless of how it is marked?!
Eating turkey, chocolate candies, drinking wine, partying, exchanging presents, etc. can be done anytime throughout the year.
In regard to Christmas celebrations, I think an atheist who does celebrate Xmas simply does out of fear of being left out during those times, nothing more.
I think an Atheist who intentionally ‘scrooges’ through the Xmas season makes it unnecessarily hard on themselves. For many of us the season is quite secularized, and it’s not a question of ‘fear’—why not take a holiday at the end of the year, share presents, get together with friends?
In regard to Hitchens supporting the war, I’m thinking his doing so might have to do with the fact he has been naturalized citizen last year (nothing wrong with displaying some patriotism even when it’s fake, and who can blame him? bush is fake)? the guy is too freaking aware not to see beyond the bush scheme. Or maybe, just like the rest of us, he is biased enough to claim blindness there as any of us would in other areas? or can one safely assert that everyone has a price including him?
Actually it’s rather the other way around. Hitchens became a naturalized citizen because of his approval of the US constitutional separation of church and state, and because of our vigorous prosecution of wars like that in Iraq, as I understand it. He appears to see the war as against fanatical Islam, and for that reason supports it.
Daisy - 26 February 2008 10:09 PM
In regard to Christmas celebrations, I think an atheist who does celebrate Xmas simply does out of fear of being left out during those times, nothing more. And it kind of sucks to be out kind of looking in knowing that few billions of people are out there, at it full throttle, as far as celebrations are are concerned. Beside Christ wasn’t even born in Christmas, I am being told His birthday has been moved there to overshadow pre-existing different pagan celebrations. So is Xmas really Xmas regardless of how it is marked?!
Eating turkey, chocolate candies, drinking wine, partying, exchanging presents, etc. can be done anytime throughout the year.
Fear? I don’t think atheists celebrate Xmas out of fear. I certainly don’t. I celebrate Xmas, as with any holiday, because I like having a nice party every once in awhile. You are certainly right that there is no evidence whatever that Jesus was born on Dec. 25; it’s a pagan holiday celebrating the turn after the shortest day of the year, basically. But I’m no pagan either.
Speaking of ethics, wouldn’t it be safe or reasonable to say that really honestely working to be nice to others whether they deserve it or not, contributes to expanding oneself, since being nice can be a challenge sometimes if not most, but not being so nice can takes no effort whatsoever?
Yes Daisy. Ethics/morality are fundamental to the “expansion” of oneself,” both interpersonally and intrapersonally. Indeed, the two are linked because we are a socially dependent species. To deny our “conscience” is nothing less than to suppress an innate quality within ourselves.
Daisy - 26 February 2008 10:09 PM
In regard to Christmas celebrations, I think an atheist who does celebrate Xmas simply does out of fear of being left out during those times, nothing more.
I agree. People in countries that are dominated by religions other than christianity are not made to feel that they are party poopers for not celebrating christmas. Those feelings only exist in America because there is a collective sentiment that a person is supposed to. And yes, on-religious persons in America like good, non-"christ"mas parties too. In general, I think that ours tend to be much more fun.
I think an Atheist who intentionally ‘scrooges’ through the Xmas season makes it unnecessarily hard on themselves. For many of us the season is quite secularized, and it’s not a question of ‘fear’—why not take a holiday at the end of the year, share presents, get together with friends?
You can do that any time of the year. Also, giving along with the rest doesn’t have a set time. By giving around Xmas, you are helping reinforce the principle that giving is a purely Xian thing. Beside if you are not afraid of feeling left out, you are celebrating the end of a christian year, and in doing so you are confirming your chrisitianity my friend wether you are aware of it or not. I personally have no objections to that since I am Christian myself.
dougsmith - 27 February 2008 05:32 AM
Actually it’s rather the other way around. Hitchens became a naturalized citizen because of his approval of the US constitutional separation of church and state,
I understand that. bush and scheney used false guilt to manipulate the masses into bending over to him going to iraq so he could steal some oil. He didn’t have to go to war to clean out the terrorists, he could very well have the CIA get to work as it always does. Hitchens knows that. When United States Senators voted for war they didn’t believe in out of pure pressure, do you think Hitchens is going to be above such pressure to support the hoax.
and because of our vigorous prosecution of wars like that in Iraq, as I understand it.
True and bush is not the one who put such system in place. In fact, if it was up to him, he’d turn this country into a 1st class dictatorship.
He appears to see the war as against fanatical Islam, and for that reason supports it.
If he is really for that, he could have written an other book looking into how and why bush let the benladens fly out of the country right after 9/11, especially when the rest of the country was grounded.
Fear? I don’t think atheists celebrate Xmas out of fear.
we do have fears we are not even aware of at times. If one takes the time to investigate this, it would not surprise if it gets confirmed. But I might be wrong as I often am.
I certainly don’t. I celebrate Xmas, as with any holiday, because I like having a nice party every once in awhile. You are certainly right that there is no evidence whatever that Jesus was born on Dec. 25; it’s a pagan holiday celebrating the turn after the shortest day of the year, basically. But I’m no pagan either.
one thing that will absolutely not be on my list about you Doug, is you being a pagan, rest assured.
erasmusinfinity - 27 February 2008 05:33 AM
Yes Daisy. Ethics/morality are fundamental to the “expansion” of oneself,” both interpersonally and intrapersonally. Indeed, the two are linked because we are a socially dependent species. To deny our “conscience” is nothing less than to suppress an innate quality within ourselves.
Salute! the only thing I would disgree on is the how of the application of ethics vs. that of morality. I am nobody but I think ethics stem from ones’ conscience (at least for the most part), but morality starts from without going in. Morality is basically a mold that one puts on to either project an image of themselves, regardless of wether they are actually living up to it or not, or use as a tool to control others’ behavior as well as thinking.
I agree. People in countries that are dominated by religions other than christianity are not made to feel that they are party poopers for not celebrating christmas. Those feelings only exist in America because there is a collective sentiment that a person is supposed to. And yes, on-religious persons in America like good, non-"christ"mas parties too. In general, I think that ours tend to be much more fun.
I feel if one celebrates Xmas, I think they aught to give Christ a place in it, the majority of those who do don’t even utter single prayer on Christmas morning. What kind of Xmas is this? the label is basically becoming meaningless. And I think if atheists don’t do it out of fear then, it could be that they do it to join in the commercial party. Either way, I think some might be misleading themselves.
I feel if one celebrates Xmas, I think they aught to give Christ a place in it, the majority of those who do don’t even utter single prayer on Christmas morning. What kind of Xmas is this? the label is basically becoming meaningless. And I think if atheists don’t do it out of fear then, it could be that they do it to join in the commercial party. Either way, I think some might be misleading themselves.
Christmas was heavily discussed on this forum back in December. I couldn’t find the thread, so here is my essential perspective. Although I do not celebrate christmas as “christ"mas, I do respect the choice of most non-theists to celebrate christmas as a non-religious holiday. I celebrate both the natural occasion of the Winter Solstice and Humanlight. I take whatever non-religious elements that I want from so-called christmas rituals and incorporate them into my solstice celebration, just as jews often do with hannukah. But I don’t like the word christmas and reject christian elements outright.
I can appreciate Doug’s rejection of the term “fear” and I don’t think that there is necessarily a direct sort of “fright” emotion involved in non-theists calling their solstice celebration “christmas.” More so, I think that feelings of needing to celebrate christmas, in all of its established ways, have more to do with in group out group pressures and enculturation. Also, from the natural desire to have some sort of celebration during the midwinter season.
Of course, the midwinter is celebrated in various ways across world cultures that lie in regions of the world that are marked by strong summer to winter seasons. And there is nothing particularly religious about having a party or an intimate occasion with ones family at that time of year. But I do think that reflective non-theists ought to analytically consider christmas rituals, and do some dissecting.
I think an Atheist who intentionally ‘scrooges’ through the Xmas season makes it unnecessarily hard on themselves. For many of us the season is quite secularized, and it’s not a question of ‘fear’—why not take a holiday at the end of the year, share presents, get together with friends?
You can do that any time of the year. Also, giving along with the rest doesn’t have a set time. By giving around Xmas, you are helping reinforce the principle that giving is a purely Xian thing. Beside if you are not afraid of feeling left out, you are celebrating the end of a christian year, and in doing so you are confirming your chrisitianity my friend wether you are aware of it or not. I personally have no objections to that since I am Christian myself.
I see your point!
I agree with Bishop John Shelby Spong
[author of Born of a Woman, which I recommend]
that many of the Christian stories are not literally true and were originally intended as metaphors.
Being a 21st century Episcopalian means you can enjoy Xmas without believing in it.
Yeah, FWIW I don’t celebrate Xmas with anyone who is a devout Christian, and in fact in NYC I feel no local pressure from Christianity. I’d say my neighbors are a mix of Jews, Christians and “et cetera”, including a large group of secular folks.
I suppose I look at it the same way I do the “sabbath”. I appreciate the vacation and if it’s an excuse for a nice lunch or dinner, so much the better.
What is this mysterious thing called the “conscience” that obeys the mysterious laws of moral realism? Is this not “also” just part of the product of evolution? How could it be? Evolution is blind, conscience is, well, you kind of have to have a high M.Q. to get the point. Really inspiring episode. (Flynn’s absolutely horrifying comment regarding Christmas was probably included in this episode to balance Kurtz’s moral romanticism.)
It’s only February. Christmas doesn’t start until late August.
