Christopher Hitchens on the Atheistic "Positivism"

[Hamilton Porter]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I think you meant to quote someone else.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I think you meant to quote someone else.

Nope I was very much quoting yourself.

So you were joking when you said,

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

BTW I've never heard missionaries say that, whether serving with them or as their audience.

[Teancum]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Feel free to clarify.

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I did not say that at all. So you are setting up a straw man.  But it is a fact that most people, including those born Latter-day Saints, believe their religion that they are born into and beliefs are the correct ones. So stop distorting what I say.

 

And you have dodged my questions. Do you accept any other Mormonism offshoots? If not why?  Do you accept any Hindi Gods?  Do you accept the God and all the ontological things that classical christianity teaches about the Godhead?

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broad stereotypes and assumptions don't really work here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yea Smac.  Practice what you preach.

[Teancum]

36 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.

So what?  People can believe in a supreme being but the supreme beings they believe in vary a lot.  Do you think someone who believes in Odin and Valhalla are on the right path?

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

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.

I did read the article. And my name is not Billy.  Do you enjoy being a pot stirrer and a jerk?  I don't think you really follow Sam Harris at all.

[Hamilton Porter]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope I was very much quoting yourself.

So you were joking when you said,

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

BTW I've never heard missionaries say that, whether serving with them or as their audience.

https://imgur.com/a/vSz1N

[Teancum]

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope I was very much quoting yourself.

So you were joking when you said,

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

BTW I've never heard missionaries say that, whether serving with them or as their audience.

Hamilton lives in some alternate reality.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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. 

Most self-described atheists define the term thusly:

Atheism: a-theism, literally without theism, i.e. without a belief in one-or-more Gods. If you are an atheist, you are without belief in God(s). You might confidently believe there or no Gods, or you might not really care about the question. But in general, you either believe God(s) exist, or you don't. For an atheist, it's like believing in Bigfoot--you either believe Bigfoot is a real creature that roams the Pacific Northwest, or you don't. If you don't believe in Bigfoot, it might be for any number of reasons--maybe you studied the phenomena and found the evidence lacking. Or maybe the issue never interested you. Or maybe you never heard of Bigfoot. Regardless of why you don't believe, people who lack believe in Bigfoot are a-Bigfootists--they lack believe in Bigfoot.

Agnosticism: the positive belief that knowledge about God, one way or the other, is impossible to have. Quoting the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

 

[Analytics]

1 hour 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.

In contrast, Hamilton Porter believes in multiple supreme beings. 

[Hamilton Porter]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

Most self-described atheists define the term thusly:

Atheism: a-theism, literally without theism, i.e. without a belief in one-or-more Gods. If you are an atheist, you are without belief in God(s). You might confidently believe there or no Gods, or you might not really care about the question. But in general, you either believe God(s) exist, or you don't. For an atheist, it's like believing in Bigfoot--you either believe Bigfoot is a real creature that roams the Pacific Northwest, or you don't. If you don't believe in Bigfoot, it might be for any number of reasons--maybe you studied the phenomena and found the evidence lacking. Or maybe the issue never interested you. Or maybe you never heard of Bigfoot. Regardless of why you don't believe, people who lack believe in Bigfoot are a-Bigfootists--they lack believe in Bigfoot.

Agnosticism: the positive belief that knowledge about God, one way or the other, is impossible to have. Quoting the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

 

There are as many definitions of atheist as there atheists. That's why I don't bother defining my terms carefully like smac does. I lump atheists and agnostics together, because they seem to like that.

[Hamilton Porter]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, Hamilton Porter believes in multiple supreme beings. 

No. Only one can be supreme.

Edited May 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I did read the article. And my name is not Billy.  Do you enjoy being a pot stirrer and a jerk?  I don't think you really follow Sam Harris at all.

Ok explain to me how Harris is not a small-minded bigot like the article demonstrates. You think racial profiling isn't racist?

[Hamilton Porter]

I consider myself a "positivist" in the sense that I think we should focus on laws that can be quantified an/or mathematicized.

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Ok explain to me how Harris is not a small-minded bigot like the article demonstrates. You think racial profiling isn't racist?

Not the topic of this thread.  Open one up on this and I will be happy to do so.

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Not the topic of this thread.  Open one up on this and I will be happy to do so.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

I consider myself a "positivist" in the sense that I think we should focus on laws that can be quantified an/or mathematicized.

Can you explain, or give an example of what that looks like in relation to religion and religious laws? 

[Hamilton Porter]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

Can you explain, or give an example of what that looks like in relation to religion and religious laws? 

This applies to the extent that the discovering and admiring the natural order is a form of worship.

 

Edited May 11, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Feel free to clarify.

I just did.  If you want more than that, please start a separate thread.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I did not say that at all. So you are setting up a straw man. 

I have long recognized that former Latter-day Saints resent being told by strangers that they left due to sin (or wanting to sin).  It's an ugly and baseless stereotype in that context.

Similarly, current Latter-day Saints resent being told by strangers that they remain in the Church only because they were born into it, or because they are ignorant, or because of social pressures, etc.  These too are ugly and baseless stereotypes in that context.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But it is a fact that most people, including those born Latter-day Saints, believe their religion that they are born into and beliefs are the correct ones. So stop distorting what I say.

I objected to your characterization of me.  I was correcting your false characterization of me.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

And you have dodged my questions.

Yes, I have that liberty.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you accept any other Mormonism offshoots?

First, you did not ask this before.

Second, I don't know what you mean by "accept."

Third, if you mean "Do I, Spencer Macdonald, believe that 'other Mormonism offshoots' have within them the restored Priesthood and its requisite keys, and/or do I believe them to be a continuation of the same institution as was organized by Joseph Smith in 1830," then no.

Fourth, if you mean "Do I, Spencer Macdonald, believe that 'other Mormonism offshoots' believe in and worship a numerically and ontologically distinct entity generally referenced as 'God' or 'Heavenly Father' and His Son, Jesus Christ," then also no.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If not why? 

I'm happy to address that in another thread.  Feel free to start one.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you accept any Hindi Gods? 

I don't know what you mean by "accept any Hindi Gods."  Are you referencing orthodox (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, etc.) or heterodox (Charvaka, Ājīvika, etc.) schools of philosophy?

Broadly speaking, I subscribe to a framework in which various individuals, groups, cultures, societies, etc. have varied perceptions about God, with concomitant variations in correctness in those perceptions.  So it's not so much a matter of me "accept{ing} any Hindi Gods," as much as my assessment of the accuracy of those perceptions.  Joseph Smith famously said: 

Quote

Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, the idea that He actually exists.

Secondly, a correct idea of His character, perfections, and attributes.

Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to His will.

As between my Hindu brothers and sisters and my atheist brothers and sisters, I think the former are closer to the truth of things relative to the existence of God.

As I understand it, Hinduism harbors within it diverse beliefs regarding the creation of the universe.  A common belief is that there is an ultimate reality, often referred to as Brahman, which is beyond conceptualization and is considered the source and essence of all existence. Brahman is seen as formless, eternal, and beyond human comprehension.  Within this framework, some Hindus believe that various deities, known as gods and goddesses, play a role in the creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the universe. These deities are considered manifestations or aspects of Brahman.  Further, there are varied concepts of the individual's relationship with "Brahman."

There are many foundational precepts within various Hindu traditions which I find noble, uplifting and true.  There are also precepts that are erroneous.  So a "correct idea of {God's} character, perfections, and attributes" is a mixed bag.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you accept the God

That He exists?  You bet.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

and all the ontological things that classical christianity teaches about the Godhead?

All of them?  No.  Some yes, some no.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Broad stereotypes and assumptions don't really work here.

Yea Smac.  Practice what you preach.

I am not appealing to broad stereotypes and assumptions.  I am, instead, trying to overcome such things by asking questions about atheism in a forum where a number of such folks commentate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 11, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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 am not objecting to your comment being "strong."  I'm not objecting to it at all.  You can believe as you like, and be as dogmatically assertive as you like.

My point was that atheists often stray from what Hitchens seemed to be describing.  Again what he said:

Quote

Is it nonetheless possible for an atheist to say, a proclaimed atheist to say, as I do proclaim myself to be, that God positively can be said not to exist?  No.  It's a very common misunderstanding my fraternity [and] sorority.  I'll take just a moment to clear it up. 

The atheist says "No persuasive argument for the existence of God has ever been advanced or adduced without convincing rebuttal.  That no argument in favor {of the existence of God} stands or has been found to stand the test of argument and evidence."

We cannot say that we know that there could be no such entity.  Among other things, we are too reverent of the extraordinary time of discovery, innovation, pushing back of the frontiers of knowledge and understanding that's taken place just in our own time, to make any such remark.  But, by saying this, we say, I think, quite a lot.   

Applying this reasoning to the Gold Plates, I would assume a person like yourself would say something like this: "No persuasive argument for the Gold Plates as an authentically ancient and miraculously discovered physical artifact has ever been advanced or adduced without convincing rebuttal.  That no argument in favor {of the Gold Plates being what Joseph and the Witnesses attested them to be} stands or has been found to stand the test of argument and evidence."

Is that a fair summary of your position?  It seems not, since you have gone well beyond the foregoing, and have instead affirmatively/positively declared that the Gold Plates were "a lie" and "a total fabrication."  I find these conclusions functionally equivalent to the affirmative/positive denials of the existence of God that atheists sometime present.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I do believe the BoM origin story is a fabrication so I guess a lie. 

And some atheists believe that the Bible and other sources which putative attest to the existence of God are also "fabrications" (that is, that they are not what they are often characterized to be).

The existence of God can remain as an unanswered-and-kept-at-arms-length question (as, it seems, Hitchens wanted to do).

The Plates, and the Witness statements about the plates, and the information we have about the Witnesses, and about Joseph's circumstances, sure seem to create a Sticky Wicket.  I think the Plates need to be accounted for (as, I suspect, you do as well, as evidenced by your declared - though vague - conclusion about them).  Was there a physical artifact, or not?  If not, how do you account for the statements of the Witnesses and others?  If there was a physical artifact, where did it come from?  What was its composition?  Who crafted it?  How did it end up in the custody of Joseph Smith?  How many people were involved with its creation and disposition?  Was it of ancient derivation, or was it created in the 19th century?

So many religious claims are pretty much entirely an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing.  Untestable.  Not really subject to empirical analysis.  But historical records about the Plates, with strong provenance and chains of custody, with substantial evidence of the actual witnesses . . . I think this stuff sets the Plates apart in terms of examination.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

But I believed it for 52 years at least.  And at times I wish I still could. 

Well, the door is open, and the choice is always before you.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't deny or affirm the existence of God. 

So would you describe yourself as "atheist" or "agnostic?"

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

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. 

Well, the cool thing about the Restored Gospel is that we are not asked to take anyone's word for it.  

I believe God exists, that we have a personal relationship with Him, that He has a plan for us, and that He has given us the means to ascertain for ourselves the verity of the basic and substantive precepts underlying that plan.

I've never met Joseph Smith, nor any of the witnesses.  And although I honor and respect my parents, and while they have been an influence on me, their influence on my faith and testimony is secondary and peripheral.  

I have had a number of experiences which have persuaded me of the truthfulness of the basic tenets of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I don't claim what I believe is pristinely accurate or free of biases, errors, etc.  I don't claim what I believe is complete.  I don't claim belief based on a perfect knowledge.  I walk by faith, and am content to do so.

I have listened to critics and dissidents for many, many years now.  I have read a lot a lot.  I have discussed and debated a lot.  I think I am as committed to the pursuit of truth as you are.  That I have reached disparate conclusions about the Restored Gospel can likely be chalked up to all sorts of things, but I don't think my conclusions can be waved off as being based on just taking someone else's word for it.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yet you re convinced your version of God as taught through our church is the true God.

This is not an accurate statement of my beliefs.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

I believe that I worship the same "God" as most other theists.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope I was very much quoting yourself.

So you were joking when you said,

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

BTW I've never heard missionaries say that, whether serving with them or as their audience.

It used to be part of the missionary discussions back under the old "Commitment Pattern" program. It was clearly a "Build On Common Beliefs" intro to a discussion about God. That being said, I'm of the opinion that Hamilton is substantially blowing out of proportion its importance relative to the subject at hand.

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So would you describe yourself as "atheist" or "agnostic?"

white people all look the same.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

It used to be part of the missionary discussions back under the old "Commitment Pattern" program. It was clearly a "Build On Common Beliefs" intro to...

...the missionary discussions.

It's the first line in the first discussion.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

...the missionary discussions.

It's the first line in the first discussion.

I know; I said it many, many times. I still think you're blowing it out of proportion Re: the topic at hand.

[The Nehor]

Welp, this looks like a good thread to mess with and…….oh dear. Oh my.

My services are clearly not required here.

Also:

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

white people all look the same.

LOL

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

It used to be part of the missionary discussions back under the old "Commitment Pattern" program. It was clearly a "Build On Common Beliefs" intro to a discussion about God. That being said, I'm of the opinion that Hamilton is substantially blowing out of proportion its importance relative to the subject at hand.

I'm glad it wasn't part of them after I left the church, listening to them trying to bring me back was difficult enough.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Meadowchik