Hitchens and dawkins, etc

[Jocko_VT]

Jocko:

I’m sure you were kidding, right? If there is an “absolute lack of evidence” of anything, it is the evidence for the belief that the universe came about by pure chance (not ‘randomness’ which means homogeneity) from pure nothing (which means no existent thing(s) from which anything could be made, or, by the action of which something could be brought into being). That, Jocko, is the real ‘real clincher’!

God bless,
jd

No, I wasn’t kidding. I’m not interested in making up a fairy tale to fill in a gap in knowledge. Furthermore, some cosmologists are leaning toward an argument that, in fact, the laws of the universe are such that it would emerge out of nothingness. Do I understand it? No. But, neither do you. While you are content and fulfilled by your religion, it doesn’t do it for me. So, no, I wasn’t kidding. I was and am serious.

 

[Jocko_VT]

How about Atheists like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Jared Lee Loughner and Communist North Korea?

Without Religion there will still be violence. Religion is about a personal relationship with God and about faith. There’s just some people who abuse it.

GOD bless,

David

Did Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro, Il, or Loughner do what they did in the name of Atheism? No. They couldn’t, because atheism doesn’t prescribe behaviors, and one doesn’t need religion to prohibit the behaviors you’re referring to.

More to the point: You’re missing the point. The OP says “X, a person of faith, had imperfections, therefore they are evil, and all faith is evil.” What’s the OP referring to?

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think so. I don’t think atheists are any different from anyone else in this regard. People like to have some sort of proof for positive assertions.

Jocko:

The use of the adjective ‘positive’ (above) to try to further your case, is interesting. On the contrary, I would say that people tend to like proofs or rationales for any assertions. Anyway, the need to further color your intentions belies uncertainty, IMHO.

On the other hand, when there’s an utter lack of proof for a positive assertion, people don’t really (usually) need proof of the negative. There are exceptions, of course, which is what you bring up–christians believe in god without positive evidence. Atheists don’t believe in god because there’s no evidence for him.

Athiests, unfortunately, have muddied thinking, in that regard.

Because the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion.

Where is this Law written?

You say there is a god–the burden of proof is on you. I say there is no god–I have nothing to prove. After all, you can’t prove a negative.

Well, you either do not consider it at all (which I doubt, since you’re here), or, your thinking, as I said above, is quite muddy on the subject.

I believe the argument that “There is a god because I can’t prove there is not a god” is called an argument from ignorance.

More importantly, what can be said about the atheist argument: ‘I can’t possibly know; therefore, you can’t possibly know’?

I only ask people to prove there’s a god when they try to force religion down my throat or when they ask me to prove there is no god.

You have voluntarily come to these fora; how are Christians ‘forcing religion down your throat’?

Otherwise, it’s not my concern. I believe your experience is real. I don’t think you’re lying about it. I just don’t believe it’s what you think it is.

Likewise, it’s extremely hard for us to understand how a person can rest on the argument that all of this came about by pure chance from pure nothing. That must be most unsatisfying.

God bless,
jd

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I agree. Of course, where’s the data? But, If you can’t be more considerate and thoughtful…if you can’t treat me as a human being worthy of your respect if for no other reason than that I’m a human being worthy of your respect…then please don’t respond, because I’m not interested in being called a liar and lazy or whatever by a complete stranger.

Really. While you’re busy calling us idiots and telling us we spew garbage? Is this the kind of respect you mean?

 

[followingtheway]

Did Stalin, Mao, Pot, Castro, Il, or Loughner do what they did in the name of Atheism? No. They couldn’t, because atheism doesn’t prescribe behaviors

In a way it does, people being killed for being Eastern Orthodox Christians under Stalin’s rule, people killed for being Buddhist Monks under Moaist rule, persecuted for being Roman Catholic or Santero under Castro’s rule, or people being killed for being Buddhist, Christian and even Muslim under Pol Pot’s rule, that should count for killing in the name of Atheism? Shouldn’t it?

and one doesn’t need religion to prohibit the behaviors you’re referring to.

Never said that they did. Trust me, I have six friends who are Atheists.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Really. While you’re busy calling us idiots and telling us we spew garbage? Is this the kind of respect you mean?

When did I call you an idiot or say you spew garbage?

 

[Jocko_VT]

In a way it does, people being killed for being Eastern Orthodox Christians under Stalin’s rule, people killed for being Buddhist Monks under Moaist rule, persecuted for being Roman Catholic or Santero under Castro’s rule, or people being killed for being Buddhist, Christian and even Muslim under Pol Pot’s rule, that should count for killing in the name of Atheism? Shouldn’t it?

No, it shouldn’t. The killing was done because the people who did it were bad people. They did it *not *because of a lack of belief (atheism), but because of a belief in some other form of dogma (e.g., perversions that are typically called communism but which aren’t related to marxism).

 

[Jocko_VT]

Jocko:

The use of the adjective ‘positive’ (above) to try to further your case, is interesting. On the contrary, I would say that people tend to like proofs or rationales for any assertions. Anyway, the need to further color your intentions belies uncertainty, IMHO.

It’s actually terminology. I didn’t make it up. Google it. Why the constant insistence in these “Catholic” forums on making ad hom attacks and the like?

Athiests, unfortunately, have muddied thinking, in that regard.

No they don’t.

Where is this Law written?

Google it. Do I need to provide citations for the English language, too? These aren’t esoteric, secret knowledge.

Well, you either do not consider it at all (which I doubt, since you’re here), or, your thinking, as I said above, is quite muddy on the subject.

No it isn’t. Now, and when you said it above, you’re just making assertions that, were I to guess, are only intended to hurt my feelings or call my intellect into question. I’m not interested in that game. If you want a serious discussion–great. Otherwise, I can only assume you’re trying to be antagonistic.

More importantly, what can be said about the atheist argument: ‘I can’t possibly know; therefore, you can’t possibly know’?

“Argument from ignorance” = *argumentum ad ignorantiam *

If that came off as rude, it wasn’t meant to. Again, this is actual terminology. It’s not that the person is ignorant, but that a lack of knowledge is not evidence in support of anything.

This is not the atheist argument, though. It’s not “I can’t possibly know.” But that “you can’t provide me with even an ounce of objective evidence.”

How did this become the topic of this thread? I just answered the OP?!?!?!?!?

You have voluntarily come to these fora; how are Christians ‘forcing religion down your throat’?

Did I say that they were forcing religion down my throat in these forums? I hope that’s not what you’re suggesting.

One example will suffice: There is an enormous movement in the united states to get “intelligent design” into science class rooms in the public school system. That’s forcing religion down my throat.

Likewise, it’s extremely hard for us to understand how a person can rest on the argument that all of this came about by pure chance from pure nothing. That must be most unsatisfying.

It is indeed unsatisfying. Regarding “pure chance,” I’m not actually aware of anyone who makes that argument. Regardless, the lack of satisfaction I have when there are answers I can’t find leads me to look for the answers, rather than rest on the argument that…you know the rest.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

**So, you asked your question, though. The answer truly is that the burden of proof always lies on the individual making the positive assertion. That’s why that doesn’t work. I can not prove a negative. It’s not humanly possible. You can prove a positive, so the burden is on you. **

Well it’s only your opinion that the burden of proof only lies on the person making the positive assertion. I asked a question, you said “good question,” and then began to reason as if the question had no merit whatever. Back to ground zero.

When you affirm a negative you have as much obligation as to provide proof as when you affirm a positive. It is Hitchens who admits that there is no proof that God does not exist. Then he turns around and argues there** must** be proof that God does exist, but since there is no proof, there is no reason to prove the contrary.

It always amazes me that atheists can assert the negative about God without the slightest iota of proof. The more rational position than the atheist’s would be the position of the agnostic, who says only that there is no proof one way or the other. The agnostic may choose not to believe in God, but at least he acknowledges that his choice is based on an uncertainty, rather than certainty.

I would say there is more proof that Something caused the universe than that it caused itself. I would say it is eminently reasonable to argue that the universe seems designed to produce, over the long haul, a creature capable of contemplating his Creator, rather than that it haphazardly produced an Einstein who could himself conceive of at least the God of Spinoza as opposed to no God at all.

 

[JDaniel]

No, I wasn’t kidding. I’m not interested in making up a fairy tale to fill in a gap in knowledge. Furthermore, some cosmologists are leaning toward an argument that, in fact, the laws of the universe are such that it would emerge out of nothingness. Do I understand it? No. But, neither do you. While you are content and fulfilled by your religion, it doesn’t do it for me. So, no, I wasn’t kidding. I was and am serious.

Jocko:

I seriously doubt that any scientists could prove that the universe came into being where there was absolutely nothing before. That is wishful thinking on your part.

Nevertheless, you left out the fine tuning requirements that make a universe anthropic. All of them, along with the fact that nothing comes from nothing, are errantly used by many non-theists, who systematically disregard them, in order to depict a fictional account for the big bang that far exceeds any fiction book ever written.

We are amazed that you do not see this.

God bless,
jd

 

[Hokomai]

How about Atheists like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Jared Lee Loughner and Communist North Korea?

Without Religion there will still be violence. Religion is about a personal relationship with God and about faith. There’s just some people who abuse it.

GOD bless,

David

Hi David. If atheists, in the name of atheism, do evil things, then one is right to associate their actions with their beliefs. The OP was claiming that Dawkins et al attack Christians who only INCIDENTALLY do evil things, i.e. not in the name of their religion. I was pointing out that this is not so, and that Dawkins, at least, attacks religious people for doing things BECAUSE of their religion. Your own argument, David, seems to say that religion is no worse than non-religion; just as those defenders of the Church over the abuse crisis tend to say that priests offend no more than other men. The point is: if you do the same things as non-believers, where is the benefit in belief? I seem to recall that Jesus made similar points, using a fruit metaphor.

 

[traillius]

so let me understand,
a) any badly acting person who happens to be an atheist cannot possibly be motivated to thusly act based on lack of belief in a deity, while the vast majority of bad acts done by people with theistic beliefs are inevitably due to their beliefs, or their interpretation thereof
b) any attempt to suggest equal time for an alternative theory to the theory of evolution is automatically a religiously motivated action which inevitably takes away all power to choose one’s own belief or lack thereof
c) The burden of proof lies on the nature of the claim itself, not whether the claim is intended to convince someone to draw specific conclusions. In other words, you don’t need to prove a supposition, but I should still believe it, merely because its a denial of X, and not an assertion of Y= - X being true. I always thought anyone is under burden of proof to defend their own supposition, regardless of the nature thereof. I guess negative suppositions are automatically superior and thus have more inherent evidenciary value, at least in your opinion. I wonder if you would feel the same if you were on the positive side, and someone else offered the oppositional negative, while denying the necessity of providing evidence on their part,.

, anyone expecting any of their own suppositions to be credible is under equal burden of proof, at least in the real world. This is true regardless of the nature of the supposition.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jocko

**One example will suffice: There is an enormous movement in the united states to get “intelligent design” into science class rooms in the public school system. That’s forcing religion down my throat. **

I’m not aware of any such “forcing.” I am only aware that it has been put forward as a reasonable theory about the origin of life. It has not been offered as a theory alternative to evolution, but as consistent with evolution.

As to it being a religious theory, that’s not so. It is not asserting the religious origin of the universe so much as the need to explain why everything in the universe seems to be intelligently designed, including the Big Bang. People are free to draw whatever conclusion they like from that, just as Dawkins has been free to draw the conclusion he has drawn from evolution … that there is no God.

Do you seriously think that if biologists entertained the idea of intelligent design they would suddenly be teaching Catholicism or Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism in the biology classroom?

 

[JDaniel]

No, it shouldn’t. The killing was done because the people who did it were bad people. They did it *not *because of a lack of belief (atheism), but because of a belief in some other form of dogma (e.g., perversions that are typically called communism but which aren’t related to marxism).

Jocko:

And, you know this how?

God bless,
jd

 

[traillius]

Dawkins, at least, (I don’t read Hitchens much) does NOT as the OP claims, attack people who do evil things and happen to be also religious. He attacks people who do things he considers evil BECAUSE of their religion - the 9/11 terrorists, bishops who cover up abuse for fear of scandal, Catholics who oppose condoms to reduce the spread of aids, Christians and Muslims who fill children with the fear of hell etc. The fact that people who do these things do not think they are evil is exactly his point. They think they are o.k. because of their religion, and therefore do these evil things. His point is summed up in that poster of the New York skyline with the twin towers still standing and the text “Imagine no religion”.

I am not sure which side you are on, but you mention hell, i.e. fear and possibility of danger, as a motivational technique, and that hitchens attacks this. I guess if he wants to be consistent hitchens would have to attack, for instance, someone who grabs a boy, and happens to knock him down, and thereby causing him to have,say, a bruised rib, in the course of stopping him from walking out into a street and being crushed and killed by the approaching 18 wheeler. To not try to save someone from danger, simply because the prevention would still hurt him some, is wrong, it has a name. Its called ‘idiotic compassion’ I am not saying that you are wrong, merely that Hitchens " kids about hell " argument is an advocacy for idiotic compassion.

I correct myself, Its “idiot compassion” not idiotic compassion., Regardless, the idea is still valid.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hokomai

The point is: if you do the same things as non-believers, where is the benefit in belief? I seem to recall that Jesus made similar points, using a fruit metaphor.

The benefit in the belief is that it may well save you from the sins of non-believers, not that it definitely will. One must cooperate with the Spirit of God, not defy it, in order for the grace to have effect. God’s grace does not eclipse our free will acceptance or denial of that grace.

Since you are in your 50s, you ought to be aware that you rejected the Catholic Church by your free will. The devil did not make you do it, though no doubt he is delighted with you.

 

[Hokomai]

I think it is important to untangle the threads of argument here. I am merely pointing out that Dawkins is concerned with things he considers evil done because of religious belief. He thinks that if people did not have religious belief, these evil things, at least, would not be done. I think it is clear that he is right in the case of 9/11. Whether you agree with him about frightening children about hell does depend on whether you believe in hell. That is his point. If people did not believe in hell, then children would not be frightened about something which Dawkins sees no reason to conclude exists. I am quite open to the idea that atheism formed a necessary part of the world-view that led, say, Stalin, to have a good night’s sleep after mass killings. The point I am making is that for every Stalin you can find a Thomas More, confident that burning heretics is a good thing, or Italian Bishops blessing the invasion of (Christian) Ethiopia. If we are judging by fruits, what seems to win is liberal democracy, universal franchise, a free press, a separation of church and state, and the rule of law. Religious belief, and non-religious belief, don’t seem to be much help either way.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

IMHO most atheists are nothing more than people who love to argue and nitpick. They, for the most part fall into a category of humanity sailors call “educated idiots” and are proof that a little education coupled with ego is a dangerous thing. They are all best prayed for and otherwise ignored. Arguing with them is futile. Remember, atheism is now a religion unto itself…just ask one!
G.K. Chesterson said it well: “Without God, there could be no atheists.”

 

[JDaniel]

It’s actually terminology. I didn’t make it up. Google it. Why the constant insistence in these “Catholic” forums on making ad hom attacks and the like?

Jocko:

Really? Would you mind explaining to me exactly how my words were ad hominem? And, no, I am not going to look up your naked assertions. (I guess this stuff works both ways, doesn’t it?)

No they don’t.

Yes they do.

Google it. Do I need to provide citations for the English language, too? These aren’t esoteric, secret knowledge.

Then you shouldn’t have a hard time at all proving your assertions.

No it isn’t. Now, and when you said it above, you’re just making assertions that, were I to guess, are only intended to hurt my feelings or call my intellect into question. I’m not interested in that game. If you want a serious discussion–great. Otherwise, I can only assume you’re trying to be antagonistic.

Oh! I’m sorry. I thought that this was a disparagement session and that it was my turn!

“Argument from ignorance” = *argumentum ad ignorantiam *

Whose?

If that came off as rude, it wasn’t meant to. Again, this is actual terminology. It’s not that the person is ignorant, but that a lack of knowledge is not evidence in support of anything.

You see? I was right!!

This is not the atheist argument, though. It’s not “I can’t possibly know.” But that “you can’t provide me with even an ounce of objective evidence.”

No; it’s the ‘atheist argument’ all right.

How did this become the topic of this thread? I just answered the OP?!?!?!?!?

You asserted first!

Did I say that they were forcing religion down my throat in these forums? I hope that’s not what you’re suggesting.

That’s what you said. Am I now supposed to interpolate your writings?

One example will suffice: There is an enormous movement in the united states to get “intelligent design” into science class rooms in the public school system. That’s forcing religion down my throat.

Actually, if you just think about it a bit, you might come the the realization that it’s the other way round… Religion was already in the schools then the non-theists had it removed.

It is indeed unsatisfying. Regarding “pure chance,” I’m not actually aware of anyone who makes that argument.

Are you sure you want to say this?

Regardless, the lack of satisfaction I have when there are answers I can’t find leads me to look for the answers, rather than rest on the argument that…you know the rest.

Well, then, go and look. Come back when you’ve found some.

Look: I am not trying to be mean. I began by answering you on the same tone level you were using to hurl assertions at us. If you really want some answers that you can really chew on, try asking questions; not belittling the responders. After all, this is a Catholic (Christian) forum.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hokomai

**If we are judging by fruits, what seems to win is liberal democracy, universal franchise, a free press, a separation of church and state, and the rule of law. Religious belief, and non-religious belief, don’t seem to be much help either way. **

Liberal democracy without religion is useless. The 40 million deaths of the unborn is the legacy of the value of anti-religious legislation in a free democracy. The millions of men who will marry other men, and the millions of women who will marry other women, and the millions of children who will of necessity (civil rights dontcha know?) be adopted by these perverse unions will be another legacy of a free democracy without a hint of religion among its rulers.

As Voltaire rightly said:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay “On Atheism”).