The Hitch:On Morality

Dades · 06-01-2009 11:39am

The real question is are all the buses in North Korea "Atheist Buses", or just buses in a regime that promotes atheism? :pac:

Tim Robbins · 06-01-2009 11:47am

PDN wrote: »

If you want to be precise about it then let me give the pedantic version:
"Regimes that are founded and governed by atheists, which teach atheism as a compulsory subject in schools, and which actively persecute those who are not atheists, such as North Korea and China"
Which, I think, does not create a different argument at all.

Yes it is because you are leaving out the fact they also persecute atheists.

Your point about 'atheist' being meaningless is very interesting. I look foward to observing how, on the A&A Board, you will now correct everyone for talking about 'an atheist bus' when they might as well be discussing a bus that doesn't believe in magic unicorns. That is, of course, assuming that you were making a serious point and not just indulging in sophistry.

It's being brought up several times in those boards that it's effectively meaningless. It's a statement of disbelief not belief.

All Christians are atheist about every single God and Religion except their own.

crotalus667 · 06-01-2009 12:09pm

PDN wrote: »

If you want to be precise about it then let me give the pedantic version:
"Regimes that are founded and governed by atheists, which teach atheism as a compulsory subject in schools, and which actively persecute those who are not atheists, such as North Korea and China"
Which, I think, does not create a different argument at all.

Bad PDN go give yourself an infraction

North Korean religion (which I doubt many of them take seriously) is based on the head of state (the head of state is technically the dead father of the guy that is currently in charge)

By the way the op has taken the statement out of context (and made it incomplete) If I recall correctly it was used in response to a challenge placed Al Sharpten (you can find the debate on you tube )

PDN · 06-01-2009 1:05pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes it is because you are leaving out the fact they also persecute atheists.

They also persecute people with black hair and women with birthmarks on their left cheek. However having black hair (or birthmarks on the left cheek, or being atheists) are not the grounds on which people are being persecuted. Whereas, in China and North Korea, people are persecuted specifically for disagreeing with the State's enthusiastic support of atheism.

Dades wrote:

The real question is are all the buses in North Korea "Atheist Buses", or just buses in a regime that promotes atheism?

Probably agnostic buses since the buses themselves have not rejected the concept of God per se - they just don't know if there is a God or not. :pac:

robindch · 06-01-2009 1:10pm

PDN wrote: »

If you want to be precise about it then let me give the pedantic version: "Regimes that are founded and governed by atheists, which teach atheism as a compulsory subject in schools, and which actively persecute those who are not atheists, such as North Korea and China"

Quite apart from the question of whether or not atheism, a completely natural condition of humanity, can be taught, I have to say that "God does not exist. Any questions?" would make a rather short class.

And more to the point, unless things have changed since I was in a classroom in North Korea in August 2005 and heard it directly from the headmistress, atheism is not taught in North Korean schools. Here's a pic from my trip there:

Note the picture of the two Kims at the top of the classroom, occupying the position that Jesus and/or Mary occupied in the classrooms that I went to some 30 years ago, and gazing down over the schoolkids with the same distant, immensely fake paternal/maternal smiles. The pics down the right side of the room are fawning tributes to the Great Leader (Kim Il Sung) and a purported history of his exploits. The Dear Leader (Kim Jong Il) has a separate, similar classroom on the other side of the corridor which is festooned with improving posters, one of which shows a North Korean soldier stabbing an American GI in the throat with a bayonet.

You should consider spicing up your pedantry with the salt of accuracy

.

Tim Robbins · 06-01-2009 1:34pm

PDN wrote: »

However having black hair (or birthmarks on the left cheek, or being atheists) are not the grounds on which people are being persecuted. Whereas, in China and North Korea, people are persecuted specifically for disagreeing with the State's enthusiastic support of atheism.

Their lack of atheism isn't the grounds for their persecution either.
This is simple a priori logic based on the definition and philosophical meaning of the word atheism which unlike "Christianity" can be objectively and consistently defined.

PDN · 06-01-2009 2:04pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Their lack of atheism isn't the grounds for their persecution either.
This is simple a priori logic based on the definition and philosophical meaning of the word atheism which unlike "Christianity" can be objectively and consistently defined.

I have a friend in China whose hands are twisted beyond repair because his fingers were repeatedly smashed by an interrogator. In repeated sessions of torture over several days he was constantly reminded that all he had to do to stop the pain was to admit that, as he had been taught in school, there is no God. The only other demand made by his torturers was that he should give them the names of "other people in your village who believe in God".

I will be visiting Tom again (not his real name) in a couple of months time. How would you like to accompany me? We could argue sophistry and rhetoric as we drive over the mountains and shake off our police 'tail'. Then you could see Tom's hands, then look him in the eyes and explain to him how simple a priori logic means that he was not persecuted on the grounds of his lack of atheism.

Zombrex · 06-01-2009 2:46pm

People are missing PDN's point. The claim made was that only religious people persecute homosexuals, and that without religious teaching that homsoexuality is wrong no one would have reason to feel that way.

That assertion doesn't hold because, as PDN pointed out, regimes that were atheist (ie not religious people) have persecuted homosexuals. That is a perfectly valid point to a rather silly statement.

There is something inherent in our nature that makes homosexuality distasteful to us. You don't need religion for that (blame evolution), I would argue that religious attitudes to homosexuality are a consequence of this, not the cause.

Fanny Cradock · 06-01-2009 2:50pm

Thank you for that (mostly :pac:) balanced post.

robindch · 06-01-2009 2:58pm

PDN wrote: »

look him in the eyes and explain to him how simple a priori logic means that he was not persecuted on the grounds of his lack of atheism.

As you're aware, China is a one-party state. It does not tolerate underground mass-movements, such as non-state-controlled churches because such movements have a habit of rising up and consuming the administrations that ignore them. The Chinese government seems to have a good knowledge of world history.

Distasteful and all as your friend's persecution is, it is not on account of the state's atheism, but on account of his own divided loyalty to the state's authority. Which, in turn, is causing the state to demand from him what he will not provide -- his undivided devotion.

robindch · 06-01-2009 3:01pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I would argue that religious attitudes to homosexuality are a consequence of this, not the cause.

+1.

The Mad Hatter · 06-01-2009 3:21pm

robindch wrote: »

+1.

+1 more

Goduznt Xzst · 06-01-2009 4:17pm

Ah good aul Hitch

I find his musings consistently amusing. His arrogance is really a by-product of his complete lack of respect for religious people, and why should he respect them? I'd imagine a lot of Atheists feel the same as him, in that they are talking to grown adults who are still under the delusion of believing fairy tales. Grown adults, who when asked whether they believe invisible creatures are flying around in the skies and clouds outside their window, or who can be present in the shadows of their bedrooms at night, will answer "Yes"

His point, whether a form of, as Tim Robbins likes to use ad nauseam, "rhethoric", is that if not for morality, then what else do we need religion and God for? He is making the point that all real aspects of religion can be replaced, and that for a religion to hinge itself on the good deeds of its members is a fallacy, when these good deeds are not unique to them, and certainly not an indication that they are doing them because they are the one true religion. I'm sure PDN will admit that even apostate religions can be known for their generosity and charity, probably even more notably so than even Heterodox Christian sects.

ergo, the morality of the members of a religion is not a proof of its validity or a reason for its necessity

Tim Robbins · 06-01-2009 4:19pm

Wicknight wrote: »

There is something inherent in our nature that makes homosexuality distasteful to us. You don't need religion for that (blame evolution), I would argue that religious attitudes to homosexuality are a consequence of this, not the cause.

I'm sure the Spartans and Ancient Greeks agree with you.

Tim Robbins · 06-01-2009 4:21pm

PDN wrote: »

I have a friend in China whose hands are twisted beyond repair because his fingers were repeatedly smashed by an interrogator. In repeated sessions of torture over several days he was constantly reminded that all he had to do to stop the pain was to admit that, as he had been taught in school, there is no God. The only other demand made by his torturers was that he should give them the names of "other people in your village who believe in God".

I will be visiting Tom again (not his real name) in a couple of months time. How would you like to accompany me? We could argue sophistry and rhetoric as we drive over the mountains and shake off our police 'tail'. Then you could see Tom's hands, then look him in the eyes and explain to him how simple a priori logic means that he was not persecuted on the grounds of his lack of atheism.

What would be the point in that? Are you trying to scare me into thinking you're right? How ironic.

Glasshouse and stones come to mind.

PDN · 06-01-2009 4:30pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What would be the point in that? Are you trying to scare me into thinking you're right? How ironic.

Glasshouse and stones come to mind.

Scare you? You are reaching conclusions about something without knowing the facts or examining the evidence. I am offering you an opportunity to actually see some evidence. Why should that be scary?

-

Tim Robbins · 06-01-2009 4:39pm

PDN wrote: »

Scare you? You are reaching conclusions about something without knowing the facts or examining the evidence. I am offering you an opportunity to actually see some evidence. Why should that be scary? -

"A priori" is an argument that doesn't use experience of evidence.
Here's a good link.

Your friend is being scared into say something is true / not ture.
All you're doing (ironically) is trying to do the same to me. What I see or don't see makes no different to the argument you've ignorned.

Fanny Cradock · 06-01-2009 4:44pm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ah good aul Hitch I find his musings consistently amusing. His arrogance is really a by-product of his complete lack of respect for religious people, and why should he respect them? I'd imagine a lot of Atheists feel the same as him, in that they are talking to grown adults who are still under the delusion of believing fairy tales. Grown adults, who when asked whether they believe invisible creatures are flying around in the skies and clouds outside their window, or who can be present in the shadows of their bedrooms at night, will answer "Yes"

Yeah... we get it.

Zombrex · 06-01-2009 5:24pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'm sure the Spartans and Ancient Greeks agree with you.

Well yes, they would. Homosexual relationships between adult men, while not uncommon, still were considered a social taboo. I imagine you are confusing this with the relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy, which was considered more acceptable.

Tim Robbins · 06-01-2009 6:49pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, they would. Homosexual relationships between adult men, while not uncommon, still were considered a social taboo. I imagine you are confusing this with the relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy, which was considered more acceptable.

No. I have read about homosexuality and relationships with adolescent boys.
Check here for example.

BrianCalgary · 06-01-2009 6:56pm

PDN wrote: »

Scare you? You are reaching conclusions about something without knowing the facts or examining the evidence. I am offering you an opportunity to actually see some evidence. Why should that be scary? -

Unfortunately PDN atheists wish to believe that a society completely devoid of religion and God is a utopia.

They can easily deny something that contradicts that belief and faith by pretending that it doesn't happen.

UU · 07-01-2009 1:56am

ElCrapula wrote: »

Ok,lets take your alternate form of the statement,you write:"name me a wicked statement or action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer."

Homosexuality is immoral,Contraception is immoral.I dont think many non-believers would fight a holy war,make themselves human sacrifices for a godly purpose.Again the list goes on

Yeah but many regimes which can't be described as atheist but were in fact devoid of religion (or at least it wasn't really a motivation for it) for the most part and they too included sacrifice for one's cause be that Marxism or Nazism. Certainly political ones from the last century.

As it comes so issues like homosexuality and contraception to say that "homosexuality is immoral" or "contraception is immoral" isn't an objective fact but rather a matter of personal opinion. Some may agree with a some may not like myself who as a homosexual, I am equally capable of living a moral and ethnical life just as much as my next door neighbour is.

By the way, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and New Year!

nobodythere · 07-01-2009 3:13am

ElCrapula wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens on morality.
He does not buy the fact that someone could be a better or more ethical person because of their faith,and issued a challange.He states that he has not,as yet,recieved a satisfactory answer.Lets put it out there.He asks:

Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

The answer is illogical. The question is about an individual, whether or not this person would be less ethical without their faith. The answer widens the sample set (figure of speech) from the individual to everybody, saying "name something that can be said and done by a believer that can't be done by a non-believer"

The question essentially is asking something unprovable: Are you more ethical as a religious person, or would you be more ethical if you have taken a different path in life. The answer is unprovable.

Tim Robbins · 07-01-2009 10:58am

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Unfortunately PDN atheists wish to believe that a society completely devoid of religion and God is a utopia.

I think we'd have a better chance of solving world problems if we looked at things rationally and compassionately. But just because you're an atheists doesn't mean you're rational or compassionate. That said, I don't know how you can make such a ridiculous sweeping statement about atheists.

Bduffman · 07-01-2009 1:07pm

I don't know any atheist who claims they have higher morals because of atheism (and yes I'm sure somebody will give an example of an atheist who does but they are probably in the minority).
There have, however, been many claims by believers (this thread included) that their belief makes them morally & ethically better than atheists. This is your claim - therefore the burden of proof is on believers - not atheists.

PDN · 07-01-2009 1:15pm

Bduffman wrote: »

I don't know any atheist who claims they have higher morals because of atheism (and yes I'm sure somebody will give an example of an atheist who does but they are probably in the minority).
There have, however, been many claims by believers (this thread included) that their belief makes them morally & ethically better than atheists. This is your claim - therefore the burden of proof is on believers - not atheists.

No, you are on the Christianity board and this thread was started by an atheist in order to challenge a Christian belief. So the burden of proof lies squarely in your court.

Bduffman · 07-01-2009 2:34pm

PDN wrote: »

No, you are on the Christianity board and this thread was started by an atheist in order to challenge a Christian belief. So the burden of proof lies squarely in your court.

True, but I wasn't referring to the OP - only to subsequent points made on this, and other, threads. It is the christian belief where you believe to have a higher morality than atheists. Atheists have never claimed the same. Therefore I think it is legitimate to question the assertion that atheists morals are somehow less worthy than yours - just defending myself & other atheists - nothing more.

Zombrex · 07-01-2009 2:36pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Unfortunately PDN atheists wish to believe that a society completely devoid of religion and God is a utopia.

They can easily deny something that contradicts that belief and faith by pretending that it doesn't happen.

I assume the sweeping generalisation (of a group that doesn't even subscribe to a common belief system) was used in an ironic fashion ... :pac:

robindch · 07-01-2009 2:59pm

BrianCalgary wrote: »

atheists wish to believe that a society completely devoid of religion and god is a utopia.

Personally, I don't "wish to believe" that, but I'd certainly like the opportunity to find out if it a society without irrational beliefs is, on the whole, better than what we have now. Well-known and commonly-quoted research suggests that it almost certainly would be.

As for god, well, he's welcome to drop by if he'd like to.

Fanny Cradock · 07-01-2009 3:13pm

Bduffman wrote: »

I don't know any atheist who claims they have higher morals because of atheism (and yes I'm sure somebody will give an example of an atheist who does but they are probably in the minority).
There have, however, been many claims by believers (this thread included) that their belief makes them morally & ethically better than atheists. This is your claim - therefore the burden of proof is on believers - not atheists.

I think that the claim is more along the lines of: as a Christian, I have seen an improvement in my moral character over when I was not. This is not to say that any given Christian is automatically more 'moral' than an given atheist. It would be nonsense to argue such a thing.

The Hitch:On Morality

Comments