RIP Christopher Hitchens

[Stark]

I don't know if Chocky knows this, but some of his 'examples' of contradictions actually support each other. How is religion being bad contradicted by kill the regilious? How is winning a war contradicted by not torturing?

Its clear what he means is consistent with CHOCKY'S attitudes. I find it absolutely delightful that he can say 'the more I read about ...' when he's 'reading' for the express purpose of finding enough things he doesn't like to disregard the man's very existence. Uh oh - MARX!

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I'd honestly like sources for the claim that Hitchens ever supported or suggested "killing all Muslims" or "killing the religious" anyway, because I don't recall ever hearing him propose such things, and I doubt he'd be so popular among most atheists if he did.

[Col. Crackpot]

I'll not have this thread turned into a flamewar.

Isn't that what he would have wanted?

Yes he would. You drink sodden ex trotskyist popinjay.

[Spice Runner]

Hopefully his ideas will be carried forward until a day when we can usher a true age of reason upon the ashes of ignorance, superstition and bigotry.

This kind of thing really sounds like it's positioning Atheism as another religion. "The ashes" brings images of armageddon. "A true age" makes me think of heaven. And, in the context of presenting his ideas as anti-theist, it brings to mind the idea of culling the non-true believers...

Nice end times myth you got there!

Huh, by age of reason I did not imply that a new "religion" of atheism, instead the opposite, you know the last brick of the last church falling upon the last priest, that kind of stuff.

As to the atheism as another religion. I'm not going to even touch that. Someone else can debate that better than I.

[Count Chocula]

This is childishness.

If you're referring to how Hitchens lived out most of his days, well then I agree. I don't think that's what you're saying, however.

By the way, I asked you a question. What part of the Golden Rule requires belief in a god?

The earliest reference I can find is the Code of Hammurabi, wherein he states in Akkadian (insert numerous opportunities for mistranslation) "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared Marduk, the chief god of Babylon (The Human Record, Andrea & Overfield 2005), to bring about the rule in the land." link So the earliest Golden Rule reference I've found has roots in religion. Obviously not mine, but equally obviously rooted in some faith in higher beings.

Anyway, lest you all interpret too deeply into my posts, I don't think atheists are amoral cunts. I actually think that most atheists were raised under a theistic belief system that included, as part and parcel of its belief system, a code of morality and conduct largely compatible with that of other people in their society. I tend to see atheists as rejecting the belief system in which they were raised, but still following most of its behavioral tenets (and complying with their nation's laws duh) and not necessarily immoral people.

EDIT: OK OK, Hitchens didn't say kill all Muslims. I exaggerated to make my sentences match. Conceded.

[Bakustra]

What about the statement "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (which is not expressed in the Code of Hammurabi, by the way, as it expresses a form of the negative Silver Rule instead) requires belief in a god? You're saying "it originated in a religious society, therefore a belief in god was necessary," which is complete bullshit.

[Count Chocula]

So you're skipping past Hammurabi, who was the topic of my last post, and going to a verse from Luke. And why are you mashing Hammurabi and the Bible into a make-your-point stew? What IS your point?

[bobalot]

By the way, I asked you a question. What part of the Golden Rule requires belief in a god?

The earliest reference I can find is the Code of Hammurabi, wherein he states in Akkadian (insert numerous opportunities for mistranslation) "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared Marduk, the chief god of Babylon (The Human Record, Andrea & Overfield 2005), to bring about the rule in the land." link So the earliest Golden Rule reference I've found has roots in religion. Obviously not mine, but equally obviously rooted in some faith in higher beings.

Anyway, lest you all interpret too deeply into my posts, I don't think atheists are amoral cunts. I actually think that most atheists were raised under a theistic belief system that included, as part and parcel of its belief system, a code of morality and conduct largely compatible with that of other people in their society. I tend to see atheists as rejecting the belief system in which they were raised, but still following most of its behavioral tenets (and complying with their nation's laws duh) and not necessarily immoral people.

The Golden rule is found in just about every culture. Even cultures that had limited contact with outsiders. I hate to break this to you, but people from many cultures all over the world came up with this idea regardless of what religion (or lack of) they followed.

You may have found the earliest written evidence of it, but that hardly means religion invented it.

EDIT: Bakustra beat me to it.

So you're skipping past Hammurabi, who was the topic of my last post, and going to a verse from Luke. And why are you mashing Hammurabi and the Bible into a make-your-point stew? What IS your point?

Seriously, are you an illiterate moron?

[evilsoup]

I actually think that most atheists were raised under a theistic belief system that included, as part and parcel of its belief system, a code of morality and conduct largely compatible with that of other people in their society. I tend to see atheists as rejecting the belief system in which they were raised, but still following most of its behavioral tenets (and complying with their nation's laws duh) and not necessarily immoral people.

Both of my parents were atheists, and my grandparents are very weakly Christian at most (a saying that spread from my maternal grandfather to my paternal grandparents is 'when you're dead, you're dead'). Of course I was raised with a code of morality compatible with society, but I don't see how theism is even remotely related to morality.

[Count Chocula]

You may have found the earliest written evidence of it, but that hardly means religion invented it.

So show your proof of earlier secular origins. You haven't negated my argument. That IS the point of this board, nu?

BTW, "religion invented it" is a null phrase. People invented religion, dumbass.

[Bakustra]

So you're skipping past Hammurabi, who was the topic of my last post, and going to a verse from Luke. And why are you mashing Hammurabi and the Bible into a make-your-point stew? What IS your point?

Please provide proof that the Golden Rule requires belief in a god. Thank you!

[Zablorg]

Hey Chocula, I don't believe in gods and I'm practicing the Golden Rule right now! I can post some pictures if you like.

[bobalot]

You may have found the earliest written evidence of it, but that hardly means religion invented it.

So show your proof of earlier secular origins. You haven't negated my argument. That IS the point of this board, nu?

I don't have to, retard. YOU are making the claim that the golden rule came about solely because of religion. I pointed out that regardless of cultural or the social environment, numerous peoples came up with the golden rule. There is no evidence you had to be religious of nature or pious to come with this idea.

BTW, "religion invented it" is a null phrase. People invented religion, dumbass.

Wording aside, it is essentially what you are claim isn't it? You had to be religious to come up with these ideas. Any more worthless nitpicks?

[Channel72]

I wouldn't say The Code of Hammurabi includes the Golden Rule. I think the Wikipedia article is really stretching here. Hammurabi's Code includes the lex talionis, which while somewhat congruous to the Golden Rule, isn't really the same thing.

Regardless, the point that early moral codes originated in a religious context doesn't mean any particular moral precept requires the original religious context to make sense. The law of reciprocity can even be viewed as required behavior among social animals, apart from any religious belief system.

[Count Chocula]

Of course I was raised with a code of morality compatible with society, but I don't see how theism is even remotely related to morality.

Theism, i.e. organized religion, is a time-proven way to teach a large segment of your populace rules of behavior. Some of that teaching may include a guy who is rilly God who died for you, or a fat bellied guy sitting under a tree contemplating reality, or a bandit who fucked nine year olds (sorry can't resist), or that you must grow your hair in braids and wear a funny hat. With most faiths, most of the ephemera is dross or ways to make your in crowd recognize each other. One thing the successful faiths all have in common, though, is that they teach behavioral patterns IRL that help their societies work harmoniously. Those that don't, like the Branch Davidians, go buh-bye.

I would be a fool if I said that atheists don't have a code of conduct that keeps them out of jail and pursuing their happiness. I just don't know any atheists, which is why I posed the question a page or two ago.

[Aniron]

[I tend to see atheists as rejecting the belief system in which they were raised, but still following most of its behavioral tenets (and complying with their nation's laws duh) and not necessarily immoral people.

EDIT: OK OK, Hitchens didn't say kill all Muslims. I exaggerated to make my sentences match. Conceded.

Once again, you aborted fetus, humanism. That requires no belief in a deity or rationalizing morality by following what we were taught when we were religious. Humanism is all about a system of morality where human interests are the top priority; what we do to help us, as humans, prosper is ideal. It's not that difficult.

[Count Chocula]

Please provide proof that the Golden Rule requires belief in a god. Thank you!

What I referred to is that Hammurabi, the earliest link to a "golden rule" that I could find, cited HIS belief in a god. His fear of that god seems to be the reason for his creation of a blessedly short legal code, as seen from the perspective of multiple translations and thousands of years. I don't think it requires belief in a god, it requires experience and proof, but what I think isn't what I'm referring to. Stop spliting cunt hairs and come back with a referenced counterpoint, if you please. You're welcome.

[Channel72]

Theism, i.e. organized religion, is a time-proven way to teach a large segment of your populace rules of behavior. Some of that teaching may include a guy who is rilly God who died for you, or a fat bellied guy sitting under a tree contemplating reality, or a bandit who fucked nine year olds (sorry can't resist), or that you must grow your hair in braids and wear a funny hat. With most faiths, most of the ephemera is dross or ways to make your in crowd recognize each other. One thing the successful faiths all have in common, though, is that they teach behavioral patterns IRL that help their societies work harmoniously. Those that don't, like the Branch Davidians, go buh-bye.

I would be a fool if I said that atheists don't have a code of conduct that keeps them out of jail and pursuing their happiness. I just don't know any atheists, which is why I posed the question a page or two ago.

All you're really saying is that, historically, there's been an observable correlation between ethical ideas and organized religion. This is certainly true, but only because, historically, religious frameworks tend to be correlated with ALL aspects of human experience and understanding, including ethics, history, biology, cosmology, eschatology, etc.

But this hasn't prevented non-religious pursuits into any of these fields. Most of Aristotle's works, for example, which touched on ethics, biology, and cosmology, were, for all intents and purposes, pretty much secular.

And in the 21st century Western world, the scientific method has pretty much overshadowed a lot of the fields of knowledge religion used to lay claim to, such as cosmology and biology. But, since the scientific method isn't as readily applicable to something like ethics, it still remains a stronghold for organized religion. However, again, despite the observable correlation between ethical ideas and organized religion, many ethical systems have been developed apart from any religious context.

But I will certainly admit that religion remains an effective and efficient method for disseminating ethical systems to large amounts of people. If that is your only point, I agree with you.

[bobalot]

Of course I was raised with a code of morality compatible with society, but I don't see how theism is even remotely related to morality.

Theism, i.e. organized religion, is a time-proven way to teach a large segment of your populace rules of behavior. Some of that teaching may include a guy who is rilly God who died for you, or a fat bellied guy sitting under a tree contemplating reality, or a bandit who fucked nine year olds (sorry can't resist), or that you must grow your hair in braids and wear a funny hat. With most faiths, most of the ephemera is dross or ways to make your in crowd recognize each other. One thing the successful faiths all have in common, though, is that they teach behavioral patterns IRL that help their societies work harmoniously. Those that don't, like the Branch Davidians, go buh-bye.

Or it could be that any self-organising society has to come up with these rules (and enforce them) or they would fail or be out-competed by societies that do practice these rules?

Anyway, this is looking like a dog pile on Count Dumbula, and my point has already been covered by Bakustra and Channel72, so I pulling out of this discussion.

[Imperial Overlord]

Polynesians had a religion which didn't contain ethical rules. It's actually fairly common among island dwellers. They had ethical rules, but they weren't connected to the behavior of their jerkass gods.

[Count Chocula]

Once again, you aborted fetus, humanism. That requires no belief in a deity or rationalizing morality by following what we were taught when we were religious.

Are you a secular humanist? If so, upon what is your morality based, since secular humanism per se HAS no set morality? Your vitriol gives me a clue regarding your mindset, but your vitriol also acknowledges a miracle! I am a living, breathing, thinking aborted fetus with a wife and child!

I am THE CHOSEN ONE1!1!1!1!

In shorter words you can understand, fuck you.

Ya know what, I just read your second sentence two-tree-four times over. You are proof of my point.

[Bakustra]

Please provide proof that the Golden Rule requires belief in a god. Thank you!

What I referred to is that Hammurabi, the earliest link to a "golden rule" that I could find, cited HIS belief in a god. His fear of that god seems to be the reason for his creation of a blessedly short legal code, as seen from the perspective of multiple translations and thousands of years. I don't think it requires belief in a god, it requires experience and proof, but what I think isn't what I'm referring to. Stop spliting cunt hairs and come back with a referenced counterpoint, if you please. You're welcome.

So you fail to grasp the point. The point is that moral reasoning does not have to be linked to the dictates of a god. Indeed, Master Kong Fuzi (Confucius), who was the originator of the name "Golden Rule", did not base his formulation "Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?" on any particular god, but on what he believed to be the proper way of living. So that's how atheists can have morality- because it doesn't need an explicit god except in rare and frankly pathetic cases.

[Count Chocula]

But I will certainly admit that religion remains an effective and efficient method for disseminating ethical systems to large amounts of people. If that is your only point, I agree with you.

I won't say that's my only point, but it is my main point. Argument from authority may be a logical fallacy, but we're not entirely logical beings and logical ways of thinking tended to sprout long after religions did. I see the earthly, moral teachings of a faith as a lodestone or marker for an individual's choices. They provide a relative benchmark that makes a person's decisions measurable, if in nobody else's heads but theirs.

[Count Chocula]

So you fail to grasp the point. The point is that moral reasoning does not have to be linked to the dictates of a god. Indeed, Master Kong Fuzi (Confucius), who was the originator of the name "Golden Rule", did not base his formulation "Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?" on any particular god, but on what he believed to be the proper way of living. So that's how atheists can have morality- because it doesn't need an explicit god except in rare and frankly pathetic cases.

So you quote Confucius who lived oh, about 1000 years AFTER Hammurabi. And you quote a guy who may have been a true wise man, no sarcasm, but whose teachings are recorded entirely by his followers from long ago since there's no record of him setting pen to paper. OMG Christian! Not really; Confucius was the uber-bureaucrat, not a 'holy' man. Bad comparison.

You fail.

PS Is this a dogpile yet?

[Bakustra]

Did your parents drop you when you were a baby? Did you bang your head against something recently? Did someone suffocate you with a pillow for long enough to incur permanent brain damage?

What does your hatred of Master Kong have to do with my overall point?