Christopher Hitchens on the Atheistic "Positivism"

[Meadowchik]

I don't see the issue here with saying "I don't believe in God--rather than "I believe there is no God--and then also specifically rejecting one religion, especially if one has tried its promises.

That's reasonable, even very reasonable. I feel like Mormonism is untenable with truth and is in conflict with the values it espouses and therefore see no possibility of God leading it as it claims.

That said, even if I have no reason to believe in any other kind of God I also see no reason in denying the possibility.

I have nothing against being humble and teachable in regards to the potential of a God. Sounds like DP and yourself aren't too keen knowing there are people open to learning who have legitimate reasons to say Mormonism is no longer worth their energy considering.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't see the issue here with saying "I don't believe in God--rather than "I believe there is no God

Why do you think Hitchens distanced himself from that?  

I think it is because both are statements of faith.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

--and then also specifically rejecting one religion, especially if one has tried its promises.

That's reasonable, even very reasonable. I feel like Mormonism is untenable with truth

I have found the Restored Gospel to be tenable.  Plausible.  Reasonable.  Good. 

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

and is in conflict with the values it espouses

I don't know what this means.  Certainly individual Latter-day Saints fall short of the values they profess and espouse.  Indeed, the notion of perfectionism - which seems implicit in your criticism here - is one of the more unfortunate cultural aspects of the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

and therefore see no possibility of God leading it as it claims.

I see all sorts of possibilities that God leads the Church.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That said, even if I have no reason to believe in any other kind of God I also see no reason in denying the possibility.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I have nothing against being humble and teachable in regards to the potential of a God.

Okay.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Sounds like DP and yourself aren't too keen knowing there are people open to learning who have legitimate reasons to say Mormonism is no longer worth their energy considering.

Ad hominem and mindreading.  That is unfortunate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamilton Porter]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why do you think Hitchens distanced himself from that?  

I think it is because both are statements of faith.

I have found the Restored Gospel to be tenable.  Plausible.  Reasonable.  Good. 

I don't know what this means.  Certainly individual Latter-day Saints fall short of the values they profess and espouse.  Indeed, the notion of perfectionism - which seems implicit in your criticism here - is one of the more unfortunate cultural aspects of the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.

I see all sorts of possibilities that God leads the Church.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Okay.

Ad hominem and mindreading.  That is unfortunate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Woo boy lawyers answer every point!

If someone isn't making a good faith effort to engage, or is behaving like a typical exmo, I just tell them to go f**k themselves.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

If someone isn't making a good faith effort to engage, or is behaving like a typical exmo, I just tell them to go f**k themselves.

Just, no. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Why do you think Hitchens distanced himself from that?  

I'll let his words speak for himself.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it is because both are statements of faith.

They don't both seem so to me.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have found the Restored Gospel to be tenable.  Plausible.  Reasonable.  Good. 

You have. I have found goodness but not plausible or tenable.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what this means.  Certainly individual Latter-day Saints fall short of the values they profess and espouse.  Indeed, the notion of perfectionism - which seems implicit in your criticism here - is one of the more unfortunate cultural aspects of the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.

Ive never required perfection in my assessment of the church. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I see all sorts of possibilities that God leads the Church.

I don't because to me it would mean God is evil.

Believing in the church therefore for me would corrupt my concept of a good God. I don't know that God exists but I want to continue to believe in goodness, or what I hope God would be. 

So maintaining that hope--for me-- requires separating myself from the church.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Ad hominem and mindreading.  That is unfortunate.

So by you're objection you disagree? 

If so, I'm happy that you don't think people cannot have legitimate reasons to reject Mormonism. I understand there are people who don't feel as I do who believe in Mormonism and I respect many of them. Mutual respect is valuable.

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Woo boy lawyers answer every point!

If someone isn't making a good faith effort to engage, or is behaving like a typical exmo, I just tell them to go f**k themselves.

Well, that's quite a Christian attitude you've got there, "Ham."  In light of it, I'm led to wonder whether, indeed, many of the Christians who holler that "Mormunz ain't Christyun" might not, in individual cases, actually have a good point.  As much as I get your frustration with people who do not seem to be attempting to engage in good faith, and while I hope and believe this isn't something you would actually do in response to such people (meaning it metaphorically instead of literally), there are myriad other ways you could express your frustration that would be far more productive than that.

As much as I find great value and meaning in the Restored Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ, if someone doesn't happen to agree, and if, also, that person does not seem to be open to being persuaded otherwise, there isn't much I can do about it.  None of us see the world as it is; we see it as we are; we see it "Through a glass, darkly," to quote a scripture.  I Corinthians 13:12.  To each, his or her own.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Despite this, it seems like atheists rather frequently "positively" deny the existence of God.  And in a Latter-day Saint context, our critics often "positively" deny the foundational claims of the Restoration.  For example, @Teancum has recently declared our beliefs to be "a lie," that "there were no gold plates. It is a total fabrication.  A lie."  Then there are the endless references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which seem to be positive denials dressed up as ridicule and scorn (see, e.g., here, here).  From our own @HappyJackWagon : "I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either."

Well yes my comment was pretty strong. Perhaps to strong. I do believe the BoM origin story is a fabrication so I guess a lie.  But I believed it for 52 years at least.  And at times I wish I still could.  I don't deny or affirm the existence of God.  And I don't believe any human really knows even though so many think they do and you are among them as well as many others here.  Yet you re convinced your version of God as taught through our church is the true God. A Muslim feels the same way.  So does a Catholic. Or a Hindu and so on.  You cannot all be right and likely none  of you are.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't see the issue here with saying "I don't believe in God--rather than "I believe there is no God

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why do you think Hitchens distanced himself from that?  

I don't see where Hitchens distanced himself from statements of belief that there is no God.   As you stated in the OP, he distanced himself from statements which "positively deny the existence of God".   There is a difference between stating "there is no God", or "I know that there is no God", and "I don't believe in God", or "I believe that there is no God".   One is positively certain, while the other is an uncertain though rational (to them) belief that leaves room for the possibility of being wrong. 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Despite this, it seems like atheists rather frequently "positively" deny the existence of God.  And in a Latter-day Saint context, our critics often "positively" deny the foundational claims of the Restoration.  For example, @Teancum has recently declared our beliefs to be "a lie," that "there were no gold plates. It is a total fabrication.  A lie."  Then there are the endless references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which seem to be positive denials dressed up as ridicule and scorn (see, e.g., here, here).  From our own @HappyJackWagon : "I can't prove that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist somewhere in the universe yet I can't believe that either."

By the way, you positively deny the claims of other religions do you not?  Why do you accept the Brigham Young sect of  Mormonism and not another.  THere are many that claim to be the rightful succession to Joseph Smith.  How about Scientology?  You likely positively deny their claims do you not? And how about the myriad of Hindu gods. Do you accept them?  See you do the same really but you stop at your own religious beliefs.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That dude never took care of his body. He smoked and would enter interviews drunk.

If only he knew his body was a temple, he'd probably still b with us today.

So what does that have to do with his positions? 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is where he loses me.  It's too conclusory.  Too pat.  What does phrases like "without convincing rebuttal" and "the test of argument and evidence" mean?  What is the context?  What are the evidentiary parameters?  Who gets to decide whether a rebuttal is "convincing" or not?  Whether "argument and evidence" is sufficient or insufficient?

I suspect Hitchens wants to keep the "burden of proof" on the shoulders of the theists, which is why he concedes that atheists cannot "positively" deny the existence of God.  And that's a reasonable approach, as long as the non-existence of God is not asserted.  I think that is where many atheists get ahead of themselves.  

Well you can prove a negative.  So yes, I agree with Hitchens.  And the burden of proof is on the believer and anyone making claim of supernatural things.  Again, I do not assert God does not exist. In fact I hope there is a God but not the God of most religion.  But a God. A merciful being that loves us and wants the best for us and is not a vindictive melomaniac punishing God that is the God is Judeo Christian teaching. The one that demands worship.  Like an ancient King.  I don't think most atheist assert that there is no God.  Just that the evidence for such a being is lacking.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Also, why are we still talking about new atheists when they're not relevant anymore?

Hitchens: died

Dawkins: I love his science, but he got cancelled for sexist and alleged transphobic comments

Harris: Allied with alt-right now

Dennett: Moved onto other projects 

Krauss: cancelled for sexual harassment 

Harris us hardly allied with the alt right.  Where the hell do you come up with such stupid comments?

[Hamilton Porter]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Harris us hardly allied with the alt right.  Where the hell do you come up with such stupid comments?

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/

Quote

Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right
What once seemed like a bracing intellectual movement has degenerated into a pack of abusive, small-minded bigots

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Meadowchik]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

  I don't think most atheist assert that there is no God.  Just that the evidence for such a being is lacking.

Furthermore, what many also see is tragic moral hazard demonstrated by those who leverage theism as they exercise power over others.

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why do you think Hitchens distanced himself from that?  

I think it is because both are statements of faith.

I don't think Hitchens distanced himself from anything. You can hold positive beliefs about things based on things other than faith.

Quote

 

Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning “punctuated evolution” and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication. (My own annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called “brights,” is a part of a continuous argument.)

We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and—since there is no other metaphor—also the soul.

We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way.) We are reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are perfectly happy to notice that we must make way, and room. We speculate that it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not worse. We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true—that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. Most important of all, perhaps, we infidels do not need any machinery of reinforcement.

 

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great (p. 8-10)

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have found the Restored Gospel to be tenable.  Plausible.  Reasonable.  Good. 

And thus you positively reject a myriad of other gods and religions that you do not find tenable, plausible, reasonable and good.  And my guess is had you not been born into Mormonism you would not have this position.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Woo boy lawyers answer every point!

If someone isn't making a good faith effort to engage, or is behaving like a typical exmo, I just tell them to go f**k themselves.

You really are sort of a jerk.

[Hamilton Porter]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And thus you positively reject a myriad of other gods and religions that you do not find tenable, plausible, reasonable and good.  And my guess is had you not been born into Mormonism you would not have this position.

Anybody who's served a mission should know this argument is fallacious.

[Teancum]

50 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/

 

I listen to and read Harris frequently. He is hardly merged with the far right.  Do you listen to him or read him?  I doubt it.

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Anybody who's served a mission should know this argument is fallacious.

I served a mission.  A lot longer ago than you did. And it is hardly fallacious. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Here's what I thought the words meant:

Atheist: Folks who believe and assert there is no deity.
Agnostic: Folks who assert that they don't know if there's a deity or not, but they tend to believe deity doesn't exist.

So, if @smac97's Hitchens quotes are correct, then what's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?

I mean, at the end of the day, I don't really care.  I'm just interested in what everyone is thinking the words mean, so I can use them correctly.  I'll go ask my atheist buddy the next time we get into a mutually enjoyable 3 hour confab on the universe. 

Edited May 11, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I have found the Restored Gospel to be tenable.  Plausible.  Reasonable.  Good. 

And thus you positively reject a myriad of other gods and religions that you do not find tenable, plausible, reasonable and good. 

You are not correctly summarizing what I believe about "other gods and religions."

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And my guess is had you not been born into Mormonism you would not have this position.

Right.  People who leave the Church are intellectually honest, and those who stay only do so because they are "born into" it.

Broad stereotypes and assumptions don't really work here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamilton Porter]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I served a mission.  A lot longer ago than you did. And it is hardly fallacious. 

MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE IN A SUPREME BEING, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY CALL HIM BY DIFFERENT NAMES.

First line for all missionaries.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE IN A SUPREME BEING, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY CALL HIM BY DIFFERENT NAMES.

First line for all missionaries.

That's failure of the fundamental principle of respect. 

What's the point in engaging with you if you don't respect that what others say about themselves is true to them?

We could all say you don't believe in God but are just using this forum to convince yourself. 

But that wouldn't be kind.

[Hamilton Porter]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I listen to and read Harris frequently. He is hardly merged with the far right.  Do you listen to him or read him?  I doubt it.

You didn't read the article. It's OK Billy, a lot of LDS were similarly heartbroken and in denial when they found out Brigham Young was a bigot. You'll eventually get over it. But you'll encounter that information elsewhere. You're just shelving the inevitable.

I've listened to Harris on multiple occasions. Debates, Ted Talk, on Jordan Peterson, on The Young Turks defending racial profiling, etc.