Peter Hitchens (Paleoconservative?)

[The Idler]

Anyone ever read Peter Hitchens Mail on Sunday blog? The comments are very educational though I think he is a paleoconservative. Unlike most right-wingers he hates the Conservative party and the government and writes quite unique and original articles.

[Demogorgon]

He makes his brother look reasonable. I don't read his articles when I can avoid it and I certainly don't read the right-wing rags that he appears in, but he is frequently on Question Time so I have been well-exposed to him there.

As right-wing as they come unfortunately.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hitchens is an illustration of the pitfalls of bourgeouis atheism. One of his books, the title of which escapes me at this moment, starts off well, but by the end he argues that Islam is the worst of them all, which as bad as it is, simply isn't true.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The term paleoconservative conjures up images of Pat Buchanan. (Shudders)

[Demogorgon]

Hitchens is an illustration of the pitfalls of bourgeouis atheism. One of his books, the title of which escapes me at this moment, starts off well, but by the end he argues that Islam is the worst of them all, which as bad as it is, simply isn't true.

Given that Peter Hitchens is not an atheist, that is a bit of an empty statement. You are thinking of his brother Christopher whose atheism is really obnoxious anti-theism. Not unlike your own in fact.

[Trystan]

Anyone ever read Peter Hitchens Mail on Sunday blog?

I prefer to bang my head against the wall. It saves bandwidth usage.

I like this brother, though. His views on Iraq are shit, but he's spot on when it comes to religion.

[Zurdito]

he might look ok to some people because his views are so out of fashion and because he clashes with the current manifestation of the borugeoisie, neo-liberalism. but we have to ask ourselves, what interests do his views express?

in my opinion, he is the classic petty-bourgeois, resentful on the one hand of the bourgeoisie which has put his class in debt-slavery and taken away their poltiical influence.

but towards the working class, the poor and the oppressed what are his politics? basically, that they are scum, they should stop complaining and work work work, and if they don't, then send the troops in. worse, he thinks that the worst betrayal of the bourgeoisie against his class is that they, the "liberal elites", force him to live with foreigners and criminals, and lower him, through debts etc. (what we understand as the "proletarianisation" process), to the level of a common worker. which he finds disgusting.

so ultimately I think he is a prick.

[Zurdito]

His views on Iraq are shit, but he's spot on when it comes to religion.

that the religious are stupid, that their stupdiity is the cause of the world's evil, and that if only they would stop being stupid everything would be ok?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Given that Peter Hitchens is not an atheist, that is a bit of an empty statement.

That'll teach me to pay more attention. :ohmy:


You are thinking of his brother Christopher whose atheism is really obnoxious anti-theism. Not unlike your own in fact.

You say that like it's a bad thing! Better than your "let them wallow in their own superstition" position which is far more condescending and obnoxious than any of my statements against religion. At least I credit believers with the potential of lifting themselves out of superstition.

[Zurdito]

You say that like it's a bad thing! Better than your "let them wallow in their own superstition" position which is far more condescending and obnoxious than any of my statements against religion. At least I credit believers with the potential of lifting themselves out of superstition.

but as long as the material conditions for religion exist, then so will religion.

in any case excessive emphasis on religion as a concept has little use when arguing with people you wnat to recruit as real militants. I mean philosophically it is useful and improtant (as long as you do so from a marxist perspective and nto a vulgar materialist perspective), but are you really going to go into a factory to recruit people who may be deluded by religion, by ridiculing the concept of God?

Doesn't it make more sense to argue against the practical, real world harm causes by religous institutions: - i.e. dividing workers, discriminating against women and homosexuals, telling workers to concentrate on their own morality instead of the social system, telling owrkers not to try to influence this life, but rather to wait for the next one, etc. - than actually proving to them that "God doesn't exist"? Which to be honest is not very hard or intellectually advanced, but does have a strong possibility of making you look more interested in being intellectually superior than in fighting the real life battles workers face...

that is my take anyway.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Militant atheism just creates a batch of new reactionaries who feel that we will ban their religion. I used to post at a forum called TheologyOnline.com. NuSocialist could attest to the fact it's a home for the most right-wing Christians you'll ever see. I'm talking about people who want to execute homosexuals and abortion doctors. Some even want an active Christian monarchy. But for every one person they converted, five Christians were turned off, and many became socialist in the process of evaluating just what it meant to be "right-wing." I was one of them.

'Course being a self-identified Taoist atheist, maybe I'm biased.

[Demogorgon]

You say that like it's a bad thing! Better than your "let them wallow in their own superstition" position which is far more condescending and obnoxious than any of my statements against religion. At least I credit believers with the potential of lifting themselves out of superstition.
There is nothing condescending about my position which holds that religious belief can be as intellectually robust as atheism and at any rate we must respect freedom of thought, expression and association.

I respect critical thinking and questioning beliefs as much as possible, for that reason I have far more respect for thoughtful religious believers than i do for knee-jerk atheists. Some of the atheism you see here is no better than religious fundamentalism and is based more on lack of knowledge concerning religion than anything else.

[Killfacer]

I like him (Christopher Hitchens), i think he wrote a tepid book which wasnt particuarly interesting, then he would not get published.

[Demogorgon]

I like him (Christopher Hitchens), i think he wrote a tepid book which wasnt particuarly interesting, then he would not get published.
There are plenty of tepid books that aren't that interesting that do get published.

[GPDP]

Yeah, I can echo the ill-feeling I get from militant atheists. Though I am an atheist myself, I never get into atheism vs. religion arguments, because I believe they are ultimately unconstructive, and only breeds resentment among the religious, further cementing them into religious extremism. Plus, most militant atheists seem to think that all the evils in the world are because of religion, and that were everyone to stop believing in God, the world would be a far better place. These are the kind of people that think the USA is the warmongering country it is because Bush thinks God told him to invade Iraq and spread the Christian faith!

So yeah, I don't like to associate myself with militant atheists. Most of them, again, tend to be liberals and right-wing libertarians, anyway, so other than the atheism part, I have nothing in common with them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

but as long as the material conditions for religion exist, then so will religion.

That's no excuse not to criticise religion in the harshest possible terms. Does the fact that the material conditions are currently not suitable for communism mean we shouldn't argue against capitalism? Of course not.


in any case excessive emphasis on religion as a concept has little use when arguing with people you wnat to recruit as real militants. I mean philosophically it is useful and improtant (as long as you do so from a marxist perspective and nto a vulgar materialist perspective), but are you really going to go into a factory to recruit people who may be deluded by religion, by ridiculing the concept of God?

The serious believer percieves any criticism of their religion as a personal attack. In any case, it is extremely rare for anyone to be convinced by a single debate session. If the deconversion stories of atheists are anything to go by, then it is a gradual process in which the believer's reactions can be roughly characterised (depending on how pious they were in the first place) as the stages of Rejection, Denial, Doubt and finally Acceptance.



Doesn't it make more sense to argue against the practical, real world harm causes by religous institutions: - i.e. dividing workers, discriminating against women and homosexuals, telling workers to concentrate on their own morality instead of the social system, telling owrkers not to try to influence this life, but rather to wait for the next one, etc. - than actually proving to them that "God doesn't exist"? Which to be honest is not very hard or intellectually advanced, but does have a strong possibility of making you look more interested in being intellectually superior than in fighting the real life battles workers face...


The existance of a supernatural is the central tenet of the religions which dominate our planet. If that is discredited and shown to be worthless, then all else follows. Criticising homophobia, sexism and interfaith violence is well and good, but if you don't challenge the primary justification for such behaviour, the believer can turn around say to you "God told me to do it. Who are you to question his wisdom?" Without challenging the assumption of God's existance, you, along with the agnostics, are powerless to reply.


There is nothing condescending about my position which holds that religious belief can be as intellectually robust as atheism

Comedy gold. over 2500 years and not a scrap of evidence has turned up for religious claims, yet you think religious belief can be "intellectually robust". The sheer audacity!


and at any rate we must respect freedom of thought, expression and association.

1. What about the freedom for kids not to be dragged to church or Sunday School by their religious parents? How is it respecting "freedom of thought" to allow parents to fill their childrens' heads with nonsense while they are intellectually defenceless?

2. "Freedom of Expression" is an arbitrary concept. Society will decide what forms of expression will be acceptable, and I do and will argue that it should not include the public expression of religious superstition.

3. You can gather in each others' basements if you want (no kids!) but if you preach in public, then I and like-minded folks might just decide to "pie" you. It's hard to credit someone with a "personal line to Almighty God" when they're dripping pineapple custard. We have pies, they have lies.


I respect critical thinking and questioning beliefs as much as possible, for that reason I have far more respect for thoughtful religious believers than i do for knee-jerk atheists.

I'll stop being a "knee-jerk atheist" (evidently you've forgotten that the default assumption in the absence of evidence is that there is no God) as soon as conclusive evidence of God(s) is forthcoming. Until then...


Some of the atheism you see here is no better than religious fundamentalism and is based more on lack of knowledge concerning religion than anything else.

Centuries have passed us by without one single shred of evidence turning up, and you have the sheer unmitigated gall to talk of my lack of knowledge.

[Killfacer]

There are plenty of tepid books that aren't that interesting that do get published.


And how many of these sell even half of what his books sell? To be a popular writer you have to spark peoples interest.

[Demogorgon]

Comedy gold. over 2500 years and not a scrap of evidence has turned up for religious claims, yet you think religious belief can be "intellectually robust". The sheer audacity!
If you think Aquinas, Kant, Copleston etc were not intellectually robust, I can only conclude that you are too blinded by prejudice to look at things rationally.


1. What about the freedom for kids not to be dragged to church or Sunday School by their religious parents? How is it respecting "freedom of thought" to allow parents to fill their childrens' heads with nonsense while they are intellectually defenceless?I am not particularly fond of children being involved in such things, but banning it is likely going to be worse. What do you propose to do with parents who wish to teach their children about religion?


2. "Freedom of Expression" is an arbitrary concept. Society will decide what forms of expression will be acceptable, and I do and will argue that it should not include the public expression of religious superstition.

3. You can gather in each others' basements if you want (no kids!) but if you preach in public, then I and like-minded folks might just decide to "pie" you. It's hard to credit someone with a "personal line to Almighty God" when they're dripping pineapple custard. We have pies, they have lies.

Evidently you support totalitarianism and I do not. It seems we have nothing to say to one another that will change our views.


I'll stop being a "knee-jerk atheist" (evidently you've forgotten that the default assumption in the absence of evidence is that there is no God) as soon as conclusive evidence of God(s) is forthcoming. Until then...

Why don't you stop being a knee-jerk atheist when you understand religion? Your opposition to religion is opposition to something that you have invented in your own mind. Anyone can do that. Actually opposing something that exists is harder.


Centuries have passed us by without one single shred of evidence turning up, and you have the sheer unmitigated gall to talk of my lack of knowledge.
Many proofs of God have been offered down the centuries. I have spent much time arguing against them. You have spent much time trying to ignore them.

My atheism is based on years of study of the matter, yours is based on a strawman on religion. On that basis it seems likely that you will come to believe in God long before I do.

[Demogorgon]

And how many of these sell even half of what his books sell? To be a popular writer you have to spark peoples interest.

I don't know. I have read quite a few bestsellers that are absolute drivel though.

[Killfacer]

My atheism is based on years of study of the matter, yours is based on a strawman on religion. On that basis it seems likely that you will come to believe in God long before I do.


Get out of your ivory tower you condescending pretentious (edit, it did say cretin but it was a bit rude so ill replace it with something else) person.

[Demogorgon]

Get out of your ivory tower you condescending pretentious (edit, it did say cretin but it was a bit rude so ill replace it with something else) person.
I know of no ivory tower in which I live. The simple fact is that I know far more about religion than Noxion and that once his emotional prejudice has dies down (which should only take a few more years), in the absence of any intellectually robust arguments against religion he will drift into religious belief. It is a pattern that millions follow. Why will he be any different?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you think Aquinas, Kant, Copleston etc were not intellectually robust, I can only conclude that you are too blinded by prejudice to look at things rationally.

I've looked at the arguments provided by Aquinas and Kant and have found them wanting. Aquinas' first three "proofs" rely upon the idea of regress and invoke God to terminate it with no evidence or supporting argument. The fourth proof's fallacious nature is revealed if "goodness" or "perfection" are replaced with any other arbritrary property. The fifth and final proof is definitively invalidated by the existance of evolution, which handily explains why living things look designed without invoking a Designer.

Kant actually identified the slippery assumption in the ontological argument that "existance" is more "perfect" than non-existance. One might say that a God that created the universe while not existing is more "perfect" than a God that created the universe while existing, therefore God does not exist!

The problem with the ontological argument is that it is pure armchair ratiocination without regard to the material world, and I am extremely suspicious about such extraordinary claims regarding the universe that at no point come into contact with material reality. But maybe that's just my scientific bias coming through. A theory is worthless without observations and experiments to validate it.



I am not particularly fond of children being involved in such things, but banning it is likely going to be worse. What do you propose to do with parents who wish to teach their children about religion?

Nothing. I was talking about adults brainwashing kids to believe in the same religion as them.


Evidently you support totalitarianism and I do not. It seems we have nothing to say to one another that will change our views.

Don't be stupid. I have no power and most likely never will. The only chance I have of getting others to agree with me is through argument. Your hysterical statements about me "supporting totalitarianism" are therefore bilge.


Why don't you stop being a knee-jerk atheist when you understand religion?

I don't have to be a tailor to point out that the Emperor is naked.


Your opposition to religion is opposition to something that you have invented in your own mind.

Gee, I had an original thought, no wonder you don't like me.


Many proofs of God have been offered down the centuries. I have spent much time arguing against them. You have spent much time trying to ignore them.

I've addressed at least two of your "all-stars" arguments and have found them invalid. Got any better?

This of course ignores the fact that "proofs" are not evidence. Your logic can be impeccable, but if the premises of your argument are invalid (ie, there's no damn evidence) then logic cannot help you. A bit like a computer in that respect; Garbage In, Garbage Out.


My atheism is based on years of study of the matter, yours is based on a strawman on religion.

Squidshit. What part of "There is no evidence for God(s) or the supernatural, therefore I reject superstition" do you not understand?


On that basis it seems likely that you will come to believe in God long before I do.

In your dreams.

[Trystan]

but as long as the material conditions for religion exist, then so will religion.


So the only true anti-theists are Marxists?

[Zurdito]

That's no excuse not to criticise religion in the harshest possible terms. Does the fact that the material conditions are currently not suitable for communism mean we shouldn't argue against capitalism? Of course not.
the material conditions are currently suitable for communism. f they weren't proposing communism would be a waste of time, yes.

the objective conditions do not today exist for a revolution, no. So arguing that there should a be a revolution tomorrow makes as much sense as telling everyone to give up religion tomorrow.

of course, this doesn't mean you don't make the argument for revolution, just like you need to make the argument for athiesm. but it means you accept that you will need to work with non-revolutionary workers (not with their leaders), just as you will need to work with religious workers (not their leaders).


The serious believer percieves any criticism of their religion as a personal attack.

well this just sounds like you read it from some elitist British liberal. this is bullshit. I have serious discussions on religion with serious believers.



In any case, it is extremely rare for anyone to be convinced by a single debate session. If the deconversion stories of atheists are anything to go by, then it is a gradual process in which the believer's reactions can be roughly characterised (depending on how pious they were in the first place) as the stages of Rejection, Denial, Doubt and finally Acceptance.


ah the deconversion of athiests, made to renounce their stupidity and then...what?



The existance of a supernatural is the central tenet of the religions which dominate our planet. If that is discredited and shown to be worthless, then all else follows.

not really, no. this has been disproven many times by many people, beyond any rational doubt, yet the bleief is still hugely popular. even amongst many people who have seen all the proof.

why?

because people are still alienated, and due to not being marxists, do not understand why the world works the way it does, and therefore need supernatural explanations, or else they would just not have any more reason to live. the self-satisfied empiricism of some Victorian born a century too late is never going to replace the human need for there to be ore to life than they can experience under a system of exploitation, oppression and alienation.


Criticising homophobia, sexism and interfaith violence is well and good, but if you don't challenge the primary justification for such behaviour, the believer can turn around say to you "God told me to do it. Who are you to question his wisdom?" Without challenging the assumption of God's existance, you, along with the agnostics, are powerless to reply.

well in such a case I would challenge God's existence. this hardly dificult to do.

but I think it's idealist ot believe that people do these things jsut because God told them to. these htings are to do with family, nationality, community, patriarchy, loyalty to the hieracrhy people live in, resentment at injustice, defence of privelege, material competition between sectors of society, etc. People kill and die for all s ort of irrational isntitutions, the Japanese Emperor, the race, the British Empire, etc. Do you htink showing that there is no genetic difference between races or no empirical jsutification for the concept "nation" solves those problems? No, because these institutions all have a material basis in capitalism.

These things will not be overcome within capitalism. People don't jsut do this shit because they think God told them to. When they speak of God they are sayign what they think is right, and they base this ont heir life experience.The reason they believe in God is because what they read int he scriptures resonates with what they live. Until you can provide a better explanation and solution, not just an empirical deconstruction of the existence of "God", you wil not transcend religion.

[Zurdito]

So the only true anti-theists are Marxists?

yes. to be honest I don't even take "antitheism" seriously, I have only ever heard the term here on revleft.

[The Idler]

Please don't confuse him with his hypocritical brother.
Peter opposes the Iraq War and is a christian whereas Christopher supports the Iraq War and is not a christian. Peter has renounced his Trotskyism and membership of the International Socialists, whereas Christopher has not (his affection for Trotsky remains strong, and he says that his political and historical view of the world is still shaped by Marxism). Peter worked as a journalist in Warsaw Pact countries and Moscow in the 80s whereas Christopher went to work as a writer in the USA.

While in general I oppose the Daily Mail, Peter is a cut above the usual output. He opposes ID cards and opposes extending state powers, supports trial by jury and other civil liberties. As he has worked in countries with authoritarian governments he knows a bit about it. He even opposes private transport and supports public transport. He has good foreign policy knowledge too.

I'd post links but I haven't met the post count yet.

[Demogorgon]

I've looked at the arguments provided by Aquinas and Kant and have found them wanting. Aquinas' first three "proofs" rely upon the idea of regress and invoke God to terminate it with no evidence or supporting argument. The fourth proof's fallacious nature is revealed if "goodness" or "perfection" are replaced with any other arbritrary property. The fifth and final proof is definitively invalidated by the existance of evolution, which handily explains why living things look designed without invoking a Designer.

Kant actually identified the slippery assumption in the ontological argument that "existance" is more "perfect" than non-existance. One might say that a God that created the universe while not existing is more "perfect" than a God that created the universe while existing, therefore God does not exist!

The problem with the ontological argument is that it is pure armchair ratiocination without regard to the material world, and I am extremely suspicious about such extraordinary claims regarding the universe that at no point come into contact with material reality. But maybe that's just my scientific bias coming through. A theory is worthless without observations and experiments to validate it.

By identifying with anti-theism you have already accepted idealism, so you are in no position to criticise idealist arguments out of hand.

That aside, if your objection of religion is that it is based on idealism, then in fact attacking religion is pointless, you must attack idealism. It seems to me that if idealism is true then God is very plausible, so the question is, is idealism correct? I don't think so, what about you? Your strawmen about religion won't help you here.


Nothing. I was talking about adults brainwashing kids to believe in the same religion as them.

In other words teaching them about religion. What do you propose be done with them?


Don't be stupid. I have no power and most likely never will. The only chance I have of getting others to agree with me is through argument. Your hysterical statements about me "supporting totalitarianism" are therefore bilge.

Not having the power does not mean you would not support its use. You wish to ban free expression of views because of your bigotry. That is totalitarian.


I don't have to be a tailor to point out that the Emperor is naked.

You do have to know what nudity is though. And given you don't know anything about religion, we can only conclude if we extend the analogy that you do not know that.


Gee, I had an original thought, no wonder you don't like me.

I doubt you have ever had an original thought in your life. Your notion here is the same as all teenage rebels. YOu have invented a silly little cliche of religion in your head and proceed to attack it, blissfully unaware of how stupid you look to anybody who knows

This of course ignores the fact that "proofs" are not evidence. Your logic can be impeccable, but if the premises of your argument are invalid (ie, there's no damn evidence) then logic cannot help you. A bit like a computer in that respect; Garbage In, Garbage Out.

How many false starting premises can you find in these proofs? There aren't many after all. The majority of them are predicated in idealism which does not follow the scientific method. As I say you need to have an argument against idealism to combat them and while you claim adherence, when it suits you, to materialism, I very much doubt that you know why you think it is correct other than it is part of the dogma here. You certainly haven't got the consistency with respects to it to have a good understanding of it. Indeed you have even called me "naive" for believing in materialism.


Squidshit. What part of "There is no evidence for God(s) or the supernatural, therefore I reject superstition" do you not understand?

The way it is relevant to the question in hand. First of all, of course, religion is not necessarily superstition, and secondly while there is no material evidence for God as far as I know, why would that matter to somebody who is not a materialist?


In your dreams.
Unless you open your mind now, I can all but guarantee that you will end up believing in God within the next three to five years. People who subscribe to childish atheism are usually overwhelmed when they are finally exposed to the complexity and sophistication of religion and end up believing. Those of us, on the other hand, who are perfectly aware of this already, tend not to be bowled over so easily.

[Bud Struggle]

Demo--Happy 3000th!

:cool::lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By identifying with anti-theism you have already accepted idealism, so you are in no position to criticise idealist arguments out of hand.

First of all, simply saying that anti-theism is idealist (without providing any supporting argument) and then using that as a basis for dismissing my arguments without addressing them is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

Further, I did not just "dismiss them out of hand". Just why should any kind of regress be terminated by God? Why not something much more parsimonious, rather than a Creator God with suspiciously human characteristics?


That aside, if your objection of religion is that it is based on idealism, then in fact attacking religion is pointless, you must attack idealism.

My objection to religion is that it is manifestly unproven. I object to something which has no evidence to support it having such a massive influence in society, most of that influence serving to support and reinforce existing social systems.


It seems to me that if idealism is true then God is very plausible, so the question is, is idealism correct? I don't think so, what about you? Your strawmen about religion won't help you here.

The vast majority of the properties of material reality are independant of human thought. In other words, no matter how hard you try, simply thinking or reasoning something does not make it true. Reality has to "respond" as if what you're saying is true (via observation and experiment) before you can honestly say it is.

Religions posit the existance of a wide variety of supernatural beings in order to support their moral, philosophical and theological statements. Just what value are a bunch of "Ten Commandments" if the God who made them does not exist?


In other words teaching them about religion. What do you propose be done with them?

You damn well know there's a difference between saying to a child "Christians believe in God" and "God loves you". The first statement makes no assumption either way about the existance of God, but the second statement contains the implicit assumption that he does exist, with all the things that entails.


Not having the power does not mean you would not support its use. You wish to ban free expression of views because of your bigotry. That is totalitarian.

My proposals can only be effectively implemented by a majority atheist population. Attempts by a minority to impose rules on a majority do not work unless backed up by stuff like armies and police forces, and even then the effectiveness is dubious to say the least. Since I oppose standing armies and police forces as well as other state apparati, you cannot honestly say my position is totalitarian.


You do have to know what nudity is though. And given you don't know anything about religion, we can only conclude if we extend the analogy that you do not know that.

I know nakedness and religion when I see it.


I doubt you have ever had an original thought in your life. Your notion here is the same as all teenage rebels. YOu have invented a silly little cliche of religion in your head and proceed to attack it, blissfully unaware of how stupid you look to anybody who knows

It's laughable that you attach the appellation of "teenage rebel" to someone who isn't a teenager and who is living independantly. I think it illustrates the vacuousness of your arguments - instead of providing reasoning, you call me names.


How many false starting premises can you find in these proofs? There aren't many after all. The majority of them are predicated in idealism which does not follow the scientific method.

If you actually read my arguments against these proofs, you'll find my criticism is not in their premises but in the unwarranted assumptions contained within them - in the case of the ontological argument, it is the idea that existance is somehow a prerequisite to perfection. It is true to say that my future house would be a better one if it insulated instead of not being insulated - but what does it mean to say that it will be a better house if it exists than if it does not?


As I say you need to have an argument against idealism to combat them and while you claim adherence, when it suits you, to materialism, I very much doubt that you know why you think it is correct other than it is part of the dogma here. You certainly haven't got the consistency with respects to it to have a good understanding of it. Indeed you have even called me "naive" for believing in materialism.

So I'm not perfect. Sue me, I'm only human! :rolleyes:


The way it is relevant to the question in hand. First of all, of course, religion is not necessarily superstition, and secondly while there is no material evidence for God as far as I know, why would that matter to somebody who is not a materialist?

1. Superstition is a central part of religion. How is belief in a supernatural being that interacts with the natural world anything but a superstition?

2. Since most believers reckon that their supernatural being interacts with the natural material world in some manner, there should be evidence for such.

In my experience, most religionists are not idealists, but dualists - they believe in a natural realm where beings like us reside, and a supernatural realm where beings like God, Satan, etc reside. Miracles (or demonic posession!) occur when these supernatural beings interact with the natural world or when the supernatural world intersects with ours.

Of course, the details vary greatly from religion to religion and from believer to believer, and some religions add additional "planes of existence" but the essential dichotomy - a natural vs a supernatural realm(s) - remains unchanged.


Unless you open your mind now, I can all but guarantee that you will end up believing in God within the next three to five years. People who subscribe to childish atheism are usually overwhelmed when they are finally exposed to the complexity and sophistication of religion and end up believing. Those of us, on the other hand, who are perfectly aware of this already, tend not to be bowled over so easily.

I will look forward to an apology from you then, if Revleft is still around by that time. I couldn't care less for theology, science is a hell of a lot more interesting, inspiring and relevant. You should know that about me by now at least, rather than applying stereotypes that simply don't fit.

[Demogorgon]

First of all, simply saying that anti-theism is idealist (without providing any supporting argument) and then using that as a basis for dismissing my arguments without addressing them is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.I have explained many times that anti-theism is idealist as it holds that thoughts have an impact on the world rather than the other way round. It holds that what people believe determines their actions rather than beliefs coming to reflect actions around them and holds that if we can force people to change their views the world will fundamentally change just because of that. Idealism in other words.

Why should belief in God or otherwise have any bearing on the rest of ones being? Before you come in with your usual guff about delusions and whatnot, ponder this. For someone to be correctly diagnosed as having delusions, there must be some way of proving it is coming from some defect in the mind. This will come forth from other symptoms of mental illness. Do all believers show symptoms of mental illness.


My objection to religion is that it is manifestly unproven. I object to something which has no evidence to support it having such a massive influence in society, most of that influence serving to support and reinforce existing social systems.

Given that you cannot open the paper these days without seeing the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury condemning Capitalism, I fail to see how it is exactly reinforcing the existing social system. Of course you could more correctly argue that it funnels opposition to the social system into something unlikely to bring about change, but even that is not always true. Apartheid in South Africa for instance would have almost certainly lasted longer without the resistance from the Churches.


The vast majority of the properties of material reality are independant of human thought. In other words, no matter how hard you try, simply thinking or reasoning something does not make it true. Reality has to "respond" as if what you're saying is true (via observation and experiment) before you can honestly say it is.Yes that is what materialists believe, I know that. I am asking you why you think materialism is correct (if you do). That is simply saying that materialism is correct because it is correct.


Religions posit the existance of a wide variety of supernatural beings in order to support their moral, philosophical and theological statements. Just what value are a bunch of "Ten Commandments" if the God who made them does not exist?

They are a reflection of moral views of the time. Anyway as has been explained to you before, religions do not have any one set way of determining morality. The Catholic Church for instance specifically rejects the notion that God codifies it.


You damn well know there's a difference between saying to a child "Christians believe in God" and "God loves you". The first statement makes no assumption either way about the existance of God, but the second statement contains the implicit assumption that he does exist, with all the things that entails.

If you want to punish parents for telling their children God loves them then you are even more of a sociopath than I thought. Nevertheless what do you propose to do with parents who tell their children such things?


My proposals can only be effectively implemented by a majority atheist population. Attempts by a minority to impose rules on a majority do not work unless backed up by stuff like armies and police forces, and even then the effectiveness is dubious to say the least. Since I oppose standing armies and police forces as well as other state apparati, you cannot honestly say my position is totalitarian.

Are you aware of the concept of freedom being the freedom of those who think differently, freedom for dissenters and those with minority views? The wish to ban a minority view is totalitarian, end of story.

That aside, let's try and put things in terms even your one track mind can understand. Suppose the population remains predominantly religious, should it ban the expression of atheism?


It's laughable that you attach the appellation of "teenage rebel" to someone who isn't a teenager and who is living independantly. I think it illustrates the vacuousness of your arguments - instead of providing reasoning, you call me names.

All it proves is that you have not grown out of your teenage rebellion stage yet. Look, childish opposition to religion without understanding it is one of the hallmarks of teenage rebellion and you are giving a textbook example of it. Why on earth should I think it is something different?


If you actually read my arguments against these proofs, you'll find my criticism is not in their premises but in the unwarranted assumptions contained within them - in the case of the ontological argument, it is the idea that existance is somehow a prerequisite to perfection. It is true to say that my future house would be a better one if it insulated instead of not being insulated - but what does it mean to say that it will be a better house if it exists than if it does not?
In actual fact the notion that an existent thing must be better than a non-existent thing is the least objectionable part of the argument. Of course that is true. How is a non-existent mansion for instance better than an existing cottage? You try living in something that doesn't exist.


2. Since most believers reckon that their supernatural being interacts with the natural material world in some manner, there should be evidence for such.Oh there are plenty of things that can plausibly called supernatural interaction. The task of the atheist is to find alternative credible explanations to disprove them. If that ever proves impossible, the existence of the supernatural will have to be considered


In my experience, most religionists are not idealists, but dualists - they believe in a natural realm where beings like us reside, and a supernatural realm where beings like God, Satan, etc reside. Miracles (or demonic posession!) occur when these supernatural beings interact with the natural world or when the supernatural world intersects with ours.That is idealism, idealism does not hold that the natural world does not exist, merely that it is in some way dependent on a non-natural world. Incidentally you do get materialist religious people, they use a different kind of argument.


I will look forward to an apology from you then, if Revleft is still around by that time. I couldn't care less for theology, science is a hell of a lot more interesting, inspiring and relevant. You should know that about me by now at least, rather than applying stereotypes that simply don't fit.
Ah yes, I am aware you are using pseudo-science as a surrogate for religion currently, it will be interesting to see what your views on that will be should you come to understand real science.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I have explained many times that anti-theism is idealist as it holds that thoughts have an impact on the world rather than the other way round. It holds that what people believe determines their actions rather than beliefs coming to reflect actions around them and holds that if we can force people to change their views the world will fundamentally change just because of that. Idealism in other words.

Anti-theism is of course no such thing. It is opposition to theism, rather than simply denial of it like atheism. In no way does it imply that the opposition is necessarily idealist in nature.


Why should belief in God or otherwise have any bearing on the rest of ones being? Before you come in with your usual guff about delusions and whatnot, ponder this. For someone to be correctly diagnosed as having delusions, there must be some way of proving it is coming from some defect in the mind. This will come forth from other symptoms of mental illness. Do all believers show symptoms of mental illness.

Delusion is not the same thing as mental illness. Delusions about the nature of the Universe should be a concern for all rational people - people's minds aren't divided into neat, airtight "compartments" - the conflict between two differing ideas of the universe is eventually resolved one way or the other, in the case of Kurt Wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise) coming down definitively on the side of superstition.


Given that you cannot open the paper these days without seeing the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury condemning Capitalism, I fail to see how it is exactly reinforcing the existing social system.

Capitalism is at it's heart a secular, if not necessary rational ideology, and the Church of course does not like that one bit. They see the rise of capitalism correlates with a decrease in superstition and join the dots quite easily.

Back when capitalism was a revolutionary ideology, many capitalist ideologues expressed disdain if they did not outright attack religion, with atheism, agnosticism and Deism being very popular. Of course, nowadays most capitalists see the utility of religion as an instrument of social control, or are believers themselves. But at the same time, they are unwilling to give the clergy the same level of power they had once before, hence the constant whinging.

As for communism - real communism - it scares them shitless! It means that everyone will get a scientific education, their extensive properties will be siezed by the revolutionaries, and it will mean the end of their elevated status in society.

It will mean the end of their racket.


Of course you could more correctly argue that it funnels opposition to the social system into something unlikely to bring about change, but even that is not always true. Apartheid in South Africa for instance would have almost certainly lasted longer without the resistance from the Churches.

That's because we are all supposedly "brothers in Christ", rather than due to some coherent anti-racist ideology. The Christian religion seeks converts, and racism reduces the potential pool of such.


Yes that is what materialists believe, I know that. I am asking you why you think materialism is correct (if you do). That is simply saying that materialism is correct because it is correct.

Because science, a materialist way of looking at the universe, works.


They are a reflection of moral views of the time. Anyway as has been explained to you before, religions do not have any one set way of determining morality. The Catholic Church for instance specifically rejects the notion that God codifies it.

True, Catholicism substitutes biblical infallibility with the Pope having a "hotline to God". That's no better.


If you want to punish parents for telling their children God loves them then you are even more of a sociopath than I thought. Nevertheless what do you propose to do with parents who tell their children such things?

1. Telling kids "God loves them" often forms part a system of emotional blackmail. The classic Christian example is "Jesus died for you sins, how can you not worship him doing something so noble, etc etc". Using imaginary entities to blackmail children is more sociopathic than stopping parents lying to their children.

2. Seperation of the parties involved, mainly. If the mental abuse is particularly severe (as it can be (http://peebs.net/)) then perhaps dispersal of the cult in question may be necessary in order to prevent future abuses.


Are you aware of the concept of freedom being the freedom of those who think differently, freedom for dissenters and those with minority views? The wish to ban a minority view is totalitarian, end of story.

If that is the definition of totalitarian, then I submit that all of us are totalitarian. Everyone has views which they consider the public expression of such to be reprehensible. All societies have subjects they consider taboo enough to take physical and legal action against. Try setting up a paedophile website and you get what I mean.

Would you allow a Nazi rally to take place? Would you defend them, verbally or physically, against attack from anti-fascists? Why?


That aside, let's try and put things in terms even your one track mind can understand. Suppose the population remains predominantly religious, should it ban the expression of atheism?

Of course not, I'm an atheist and I wouldn't like it. The same presumably goes for the believer.

We're on different sides. Your appeal to some abstract "freedom of expression" in no way reflects how the world actually works.


All it proves is that you have not grown out of your teenage rebellion stage yet. Look, childish opposition to religion without understanding it is one of the hallmarks of teenage rebellion and you are giving a textbook example of it. Why on earth should I think it is something different?

Because you're wrong.



In actual fact the notion that an existent thing must be better than a non-existent thing is the least objectionable part of the argument. Of course that is true. How is a non-existent mansion for instance better than an existing cottage? You try living in something that doesn't exist.

It doesn't prove that God exists. If something is perfect, it doesn't have to exist. The idea of existence as something that makes something perfect is subjective. Sure, the mansion would be more perfect if it existed than if it didn't, but that doesn't mean it actually exists.


Oh there are plenty of things that can plausibly called supernatural interaction. The task of the atheist is to find alternative credible explanations to disprove them. If that ever proves impossible, the existence of the supernatural will have to be considered

Untrue. the burden of proof is on the positive assumption about the universe. Otherwise the believer can come up with an endless series of rationalisations for why he has no evidence. For example, if a believer says that he can see God standing beside me, and I ask why I can't see Him, he can easily reply "Because you're blinded by sin". However, in the absence of evidence, I apply Occam's Razor and assume he doesn't exist. The application of the principle of parsimony has done science a great service, and I see no reason why that should not apply to the rest of human knowledge.


That is idealism, idealism does not hold that the natural world does not exist, merely that it is in some way dependent on a non-natural world.

Nevertheless, they believe in a dichotomy between material and supernatural realm(s) and believe that they interact in some fashion. This should be reflected in material reality. The fact that it isn't I consider a damning lack of evidence.


Incidentally you do get materialist religious people, they use a different kind of argument.

Interesting. Just what do they say?


Ah yes, I am aware you are using pseudo-science as a surrogate for religion currently, it will be interesting to see what your views on that will be should you come to understand real science.

And what pseudoscience would that be?

[Demogorgon]

Anti-theism is of course no such thing. It is opposition to theism, rather than simply denial of it like atheism. In no way does it imply that the opposition is necessarily idealist in nature.

And why would one oppose it if they did not think the thoughts themselves were harmful?


Delusion is not the same thing as mental illness. Delusions about the nature of the Universe should be a concern for all rational people - people's minds aren't divided into neat, airtight "compartments" - the conflict between two differing ideas of the universe is eventually resolved one way or the other, in the case of Kurt Wise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise) coming down definitively on the side of superstition.

Delusions are a sign of mental illness. You are confusing them about simply being wrong. Doubtless there are many things about the Universe that I believe that are wrong, science is always proving old theories wrong and coming up with new ones, it doesn't mean that I am deluded though.


Capitalism is at it's heart a secular, if not necessary rational ideology, and the Church of course does not like that one bit. They see the rise of capitalism correlates with a decrease in superstition and join the dots quite easily.

Back when capitalism was a revolutionary ideology, many capitalist ideologues expressed disdain if they did not outright attack religion, with atheism, agnosticism and Deism being very popular. Of course, nowadays most capitalists see the utility of religion as an instrument of social control, or are believers themselves. But at the same time, they are unwilling to give the clergy the same level of power they had once before, hence the constant whinging.

As for communism - real communism - it scares them shitless! It means that everyone will get a scientific education, their extensive properties will be siezed by the revolutionaries, and it will mean the end of their elevated status in society.

It will mean the end of their racket.

Those that believe that Communism could still come are scared of it, but what has that got to do with religion? Certainly the two can and do co-exist.

Incidentally the notion of people getting a scientific education does not scare capitalists, indeed they go out of their way to give as many people as possible a scientific education as people so educated have more skills and can do more productive work.

While fear of opposition to capitalism doesn't come into it as much as you think, when it is there, again they prefer people to be educated in science, because scientific education does nothing to foster opposition to capitalism whereas education in the humanities very often fosters opposition as it is there that the workings of capitalism are learned.


That's because we are all supposedly "brothers in Christ", rather than due to some coherent anti-racist ideology. The Christian religion seeks converts, and racism reduces the potential pool of such.

Oh don't be ridiculous. The passion of the anti-racism in many of the church leaders and members was quite incredible. I suppose you are going to tell us that the likes of Desmond Tutu never cared really about apartheid?

And incidentally apartheid wasn't exactly harming the Church's recruitment, because the apartheid laws either specifically exempted churches or else were never enforced against them, they were the only place non-whites could be treated as equal to whites and got huge membership as a result. Predictably the end of apartheid has caused declining membership.


Because science, a materialist way of looking at the universe, works.

Actually it isn't necessarily materialist. Idealists look at science the same way determinists look at decision making. Just as determinists usually act as if there is free will in decision making (the alternative being going mad), idealists hold that science can accurately reflect the physical world and do not consider the other aspects of existence they believe in. After all many Scientists are idealists. The Headmaster of my School was a Catholic Priest and also a philosopher and Physicist and anyway he taught us philosophy in Sixth Year and many times canvassed the opinion that he was convinced that physics was proving idealism correct. Obviously I disagreed with him, but it a view that I have encountered again quite a few times since. So science working does not prove materialism.


True, Catholicism substitutes biblical infallibility with the Pope having a "hotline to God". That's no better.

Nope, Papal Infallibility only applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra and that has only ever happened once. Of course in the days before Papal Infallibility Popes still had doctrine setting powers but they could not be held infallible for them, though of course some believe they are. At any rate Papal Infallibility as we understand it today has only happened one time-to declare the Divinity of the Virgin Mary. So it is safe to say it is not the source of Catholic Theology.

Catholic Moral Teaching is based on Natural Law incidentally.


1. Telling kids "God loves them" often forms part a system of emotional blackmail. The classic Christian example is "Jesus died for you sins, how can you not worship him doing something so noble, etc etc". Using imaginary entities to blackmail children is more sociopathic than stopping parents lying to their children.And how often do parents do that? Did your parents do it to you? Most parents do raise children in their own faith. Mine certainly did, though I don't recall them ever blackmailing me or attempting to frighten or guilt me into religion.


2. Seperation of the parties involved, mainly. If the mental abuse is particularly severe (as it can be (http://peebs.net/)) then perhaps dispersal of the cult in question may be necessary in order to prevent future abuses.

So you would commit the monstrous act of tearing families apart to stop them raising their children in their culture and faith? That is considered a Crime Against Humanity. Do you realise how harmful it is to take children from their parents? I can not imagine just how much you burn with hatred in order to be able to advocate such a terrible thing just to force down ideas you dislike.


If that is the definition of totalitarian, then I submit that all of us are totalitarian. Everyone has views which they consider the public expression of such to be reprehensible. All societies have subjects they consider taboo enough to take physical and legal action against. Try setting up a paedophile website and you get what I mean.

Would you allow a Nazi rally to take place? Would you defend them, verbally or physically, against attack from anti-fascists? Why?
Freedom Of Expression involves the freedom of views you disagree with. There isn't a regime in history, no matter how awful that banned views that suited the leadership. A free society allows all views to be expressed


Of course not, I'm an atheist and I wouldn't like it. The same presumably goes for the believer.

We're on different sides. Your appeal to some abstract "freedom of expression" in no way reflects how the world actually works.

Given you have obviously never visited, let me tell you a little bit about the real world. Hear both religion and atheism is allowed, both are allowed to express their views freely without any repercussions. It is a very good thing. Why precisely do you wish to take that away? Why are you so reactionary as to wish to return to the Seventeenth Century with regards to religious freedom?


Because you're wrong.

Well there is a lnock down argument


It doesn't prove that God exists. If something is perfect, it doesn't have to exist. The idea of existence as something that makes something perfect is subjective. Sure, the mansion would be more perfect if it existed than if it didn't, but that doesn't mean it actually exists.

That isn't the reason the argument is wrong. The argument is wrong because there is no reason there needs to be a perfect entity in the first place. It is certain that if there had to be a most perfect thing then it would have to exist otherwise it would not be perfect.


Untrue. the burden of proof is on the positive assumption about the universe. Otherwise the believer can come up with an endless series of rationalisations for why he has no evidence. For example, if a believer says that he can see God standing beside me, and I ask why I can't see Him, he can easily reply "Because you're blinded by sin". However, in the absence of evidence, I apply Occam's Razor and assume he doesn't exist. The application of the principle of parsimony has done science a great service, and I see no reason why that should not apply to the rest of human knowledge.

But evidence is always offered. Most (though certainly not all) religious believers are rationalists who believe in certain a priori truths and that facts can be deducted through pure reason. Rationalism is opposed by empiricism, the school of thought I belong to, and apparently you do too. However we cannot simply declare empiricism to be correct without giving rationalism a fair hearing so where there are proofs that are acceptable by rationalist definitions they deserve fair examination and unless we can prove them wrong through rationalist arguments, we must simply conclude that we believe them wrong due to them not meeting empiricist standards, but until we can absolutely prove that empiricism is the best way to go about things (something I doubt will come about soon), we have to accept that there is evidence even though we don't accept it.

Incidentally, there are plenty of atheist rationalists, so it is perfectly possible to sucessfully argue the rationalist proves of God, you just can't dismiss them outright.


Nevertheless, they believe in a dichotomy between material and supernatural realm(s) and believe that they interact in some fashion. This should be reflected in material reality. The fact that it isn't I consider a damning lack of evidence.

It is simply begging the question though. I certainly agree that materialism and empiricism are the correct ways of going about things, but given most believers disagree with me, I cannot simply assert that those are the terms the debate is to be held on.


Interesting. Just what do they say?

They say different things. I don't know as much about it as I do about religious idealism so I cannot paint a full picture but Aristotelian philosophy plays a big part for a lot of them


And what pseudoscience would that be?
You know perfectly well what I meant. I think perhaps your totally ridiculous views of what science is and what it can achieve. Remember you said engineers would be better than economists at running the economy? Well imagine I said economists would be better than engineers at engineering and you might see how ridiculous that sounded.

[Sendo]

Noxion,
there's more to the wide world of religion that hokey Jewish stories of beard stroking men on rain clouds or pagan sacrifices.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And why would one oppose it if they did not think the thoughts themselves were harmful?

Because while ideas by themselves are harmless, they can do grevious harm when put into practice. Nazi notions of racial superiority resulted in 6 million dead Jews and other "undesirables" when they were put into practice.


Delusions are a sign of mental illness. You are confusing them about simply being wrong. Doubtless there are many things about the Universe that I believe that are wrong, science is always proving old theories wrong and coming up with new ones, it doesn't mean that I am deluded though.

Hmm...



[edit (http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=delusion&action=edit&section=2)] Noun

Singular
delusion
Plural
delusions (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/delusions)




delusion (plural delusions (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/delusions))
A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.
The state of being deluded or misled.
That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief.
Part or all of this page has been imported from the 1913 edition of Webster’s Dictionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Webster), which is now free of copyright and hence in the public domain. The imported definitions may be significantly out of date, and any more recent senses may be completely missing.



8 dictionary results for: Delusion
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=delusion&ia=luna) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Delusion#sharethis)de·lu·sion http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/D01/D0154700) /dɪˈluhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʒən/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun

1. an act or instance of deluding.

2. the state of being deluded.

3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.

4.Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L délūsiōn- (s. of délūsiō), equiv. to délūs(us) (ptp. of délūdere; see delude (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=delude)) + -iōn- -ion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=-ion)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

—Related forms de·lu·sion·al, de·lu·sion·ar·y, adjective

—Synonyms 1. deception. See illusion. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illusion)

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

I am of course, using delusion in it's popular sense, as I am not a psychiatrist. And of course, one doesn't have to be mentally ill to be too stubborn/indoctrinated/ignorant to learn after the fact.


Those that believe that Communism could still come are scared of it, but what has that got to do with religion? Certainly the two can and do co-exist.

Communist society does not exist, and I disagree that religion has a place in it. People who claim to be communist and religious are simply confused.


Incidentally the notion of people getting a scientific education does not scare capitalists, indeed they go out of their way to give as many people as possible a scientific education as people so educated have more skills and can do more productive work.

While fear of opposition to capitalism doesn't come into it as much as you think, when it is there, again they prefer people to be educated in science, because scientific education does nothing to foster opposition to capitalism whereas education in the humanities very often fosters opposition as it is there that the workings of capitalism are learned.

The prospect of communism scares the clergy shitless. Most people under capitalism have a poor grasp of scientific facts, let alone methodology.


Oh don't be ridiculous. The passion of the anti-racism in many of the church leaders and members was quite incredible. I suppose you are going to tell us that the likes of Desmond Tutu never cared really about apartheid?

I was not questioning their passion, I was questioning their motivations.



And incidentally apartheid wasn't exactly harming the Church's recruitment, because the apartheid laws either specifically exempted churches or else were never enforced against them, they were the only place non-whites could be treated as equal to whites and got huge membership as a result. Predictably the end of apartheid has caused declining membership.

So as well helping to end apartheid, the churches managed to shoot themselves in the foot. Good news.


Actually it isn't necessarily materialist. Idealists look at science the same way determinists look at decision making. Just as determinists usually act as if there is free will in decision making (the alternative being going mad), idealists hold that science can accurately reflect the physical world and do not consider the other aspects of existence they believe in. After all many Scientists are idealists. The Headmaster of my School was a Catholic Priest and also a philosopher and Physicist and anyway he taught us philosophy in Sixth Year and many times canvassed the opinion that he was convinced that physics was proving idealism correct. Obviously I disagreed with him, but it a view that I have encountered again quite a few times since. So science working does not prove materialism.

Idealists can come up with all sorts of verbal gymnastics to avoid the consequences of their worldview. I don't lend them any credence. As far as I can tell, the material is all that exists; what other "aspects of existence" are there? The fact that some scientists are idealists is of no more consequence than the fact that some (but interstingly, not the majority) are believers.

Without knowing your headmaster's arguments, it's impossible to for me tell whether he had a genuine point or was just blowing smoke.


Nope, Papal Infallibility only applies when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra and that has only ever happened once. Of course in the days before Papal Infallibility Popes still had doctrine setting powers but they could not be held infallible for them, though of course some believe they are. At any rate Papal Infallibility as we understand it today has only happened one time-to declare the Divinity of the Virgin Mary. So it is safe to say it is not the source of Catholic Theology.

Whatever is "officially" proclaimed to be infallible is immaterial, as serious Catholics listen to what the Pope has to say and takes it seriously if they don't already accept it.

Why should any sensible person take what that old turd says seriously?


Catholic Moral Teaching is based on Natural Law incidentally.

Since laws are artificial constructs in the first place, just what relevance does this have?


And how often do parents do that? Did your parents do it to you? Most parents do raise children in their own faith. Mine certainly did, though I don't recall them ever blackmailing me or attempting to frighten or guilt me into religion.

I have no idea, but it certainly happens, and children are powerless against it. My parents were not religious, so no.


So you would commit the monstrous act of tearing families apart to stop them raising their children in their culture and faith? That is considered a Crime Against Humanity. Do you realise how harmful it is to take children from their parents? I can not imagine just how much you burn with hatred in order to be able to advocate such a terrible thing just to force down ideas you dislike.

Societies regularly seperate children from their parents if they do something that they consider abusive. I'm not surprised that you take bourgeouis "human rights" legislation as legitimate. It's main enforcer is the UN, a contemptible figleaf of US imperialism if there ever was one.


Freedom Of Expression involves the freedom of views you disagree with. There isn't a regime in history, no matter how awful that banned views that suited the leadership. A free society allows all views to be expressed

Of course you cannot ban an idea, as it is impossible to reach into people's heads and alter their thoughts. But on the other hand, behaviour can be regulated, and many societies regulate behaviour they deem unsuitable. By that measure, no society has or ever will be free.

It seems you have an idealist measure of freedom disconnected from social reality. Are you sure you're not an idealist?


Given you have obviously never visited, let me tell you a little bit about the real world. Hear both religion and atheism is allowed, both are allowed to express their views freely without any repercussions. It is a very good thing. Why precisely do you wish to take that away? Why are you so reactionary as to wish to return to the Seventeenth Century with regards to religious freedom?

Freedom of religion does not exist in capitalist society. No matter what your religion says, child sacrifice is against the law and if caught you will be punished. Nowadays it is not childrens' bodies that are sacrificed, but their minds. Filling kids' heads with patent nonsense is also considered unacceptable, but the exception is made for religion. Not for any good reason, though.


Well there is a lnock down argument

The only way I can prove you wrong, it seems to me, is to wait for a few years.


That isn't the reason the argument is wrong. The argument is wrong because there is no reason there needs to be a perfect entity in the first place. It is certain that if there had to be a most perfect thing then it would have to exist otherwise it would not be perfect.

OK, I stand corrected.


But evidence is always offered. Most (though certainly not all) religious believers are rationalists who believe in certain a priori truths and that facts can be deducted through pure reason. Rationalism is opposed by empiricism, the school of thought I belong to, and apparently you do too. However we cannot simply declare empiricism to be correct without giving rationalism a fair hearing so where there are proofs that are acceptable by rationalist definitions they deserve fair examination and unless we can prove them wrong through rationalist arguments, we must simply conclude that we believe them wrong due to them not meeting empiricist standards, but until we can absolutely prove that empiricism is the best way to go about things (something I doubt will come about soon), we have to accept that there is evidence even though we don't accept it.

I consider the dichotomy of rationalism vs empiricism to be false. Pure reason would never have discovered the quantum world, relativity and other counter-intuitive aspects of reality, while empiricism alone is useless for formulating new theories. Science uses both methodological empiricism and reason, and hence cuts across the divide. The success of such an approach is undeniable.


It is simply begging the question though. I certainly agree that materialism and empiricism are the correct ways of going about things, but given most believers disagree with me, I cannot simply assert that those are the terms the debate is to be held on.

Material reality is the ultimate objective standard, though. No matter what you personally believe, the nature of material reality means that you cannot live without eating food. In this manner the terms of debate are set not by either side but by something external.


You know perfectly well what I meant. I think perhaps your totally ridiculous views of what science is and what it can achieve. Remember you said engineers would be better than economists at running the economy? Well imagine I said economists would be better than engineers at engineering and you might see how ridiculous that sounded.

So I'm an optimist when it comes to what science is capable of. So what? I've got good reasons to be.

An engineer's approach to managing energy and resources would at least have the benefit of being more glued to reality. At least engineers, unlike bourgeouis economists, are held responsible if they fuck up. And boy have the economists fucked up! :ohmy:

[Demogorgon]

Because while ideas by themselves are harmless, they can do grevious harm when put into practice. Nazi notions of racial superiority resulted in 6 million dead Jews and other "undesirables" when they were put into practice.

And that came about from the thoughts? Or rather to say, simply forcing people to express different thoughts would have stopped it? Germany was obviously heading for trouble from the start of the Weimer Republic. Of course with the benefit of hindsight we can say that certain different policies might have avoided what happened, but simply looking at the thoughts people were holding is ridiculous.


I am of course, using delusion in it's popular sense, as I am not a psychiatrist. And of course, one doesn't have to be mentally ill to be too stubborn/indoctrinated/ignorant to learn after the fact.

In that case we must conclude that being deluded is not particularly harmful, everybody liking to hold certain views counter to the facts.


Communist society does not exist, and I disagree that religion has a place in it. People who claim to be communist and religious are simply confused.

Oh really? Given there are people who hold to both views with vastly superior knowledge of both subjects than yourself, what qualifies you to say that they are confused?


The prospect of communism scares the clergy shitless. Most people under capitalism have a poor grasp of scientific facts, let alone methodology.

If as you say, Communism would put a higher priority on science then we can only conclude that the clergy would quite like Communism, science being preferable in their eyes to the humanities as it is the humanities that are more likely to lead to atheism.


I was not questioning their passion, I was questioning their motivations.

So as well helping to end apartheid, the churches managed to shoot themselves in the foot. Good news.

And here you tell us they were acting to enhance their power even though they knew the end of apartheid would diminish it.


Idealists can come up with all sorts of verbal gymnastics to avoid the consequences of their worldview. I don't lend them any credence. As far as I can tell, the material is all that exists; what other "aspects of existence" are there? The fact that some scientists are idealists is of no more consequence than the fact that some (but interstingly, not the majority) are believers.

Without knowing your headmaster's arguments, it's impossible to for me tell whether he had a genuine point or was just blowing smoke.

It is very relevant as it shows that idealists need not reject science and that the existence of science does not prove materialism in of itself.


Whatever is "officially" proclaimed to be infallible is immaterial, as serious Catholics listen to what the Pope has to say and takes it seriously if they don't already accept it.The current Pope isn't actually that popular amongst Catholics and his views certainly aren;t gaining much currency amongst the Catholic population


Since laws are artificial constructs in the first place, just what relevance does this have?

It is what the Catholic Church believes, they hold morality comes from natural law rather than divine prescription. The fact that you don't believe that does not change the basis for their beliefs.


I have no idea, but it certainly happens, and children are powerless against it. My parents were not religious, so no.

Evidently not speaking from experience then. If you can show me any evidence that being brought up religious is harmful, I will be surprised.


Societies regularly seperate children from their parents if they do something that they consider abusive. I'm not surprised that you take bourgeouis "human rights" legislation as legitimate. It's main enforcer is the UN, a contemptible figleaf of US imperialism if there ever was one.
Given that being raised religious is not harmful but being taken from one's parents is very harmful, we can conclude that your proposal is not justified. Given that taking children away from their parents for the purposes of destroying a particular cultural group is genocide, you evidently have a bit of a problem, Calling such things "bourgeoisie" won't help you here, do only the bourgeoisie oppose genocide? To the best of my knowledge, they are in fact rather prone to committing it given the right circumstances. It seems where we differ is that I belief a socialist society should be better than a bourgeoisie dominated society, you believe it should be worse.



Of course you cannot ban an idea, as it is impossible to reach into people's heads and alter their thoughts. But on the other hand, behaviour can be regulated, and many societies regulate behaviour they deem unsuitable. By that measure, no society has or ever will be free.

It seems you have an idealist measure of freedom disconnected from social reality. Are you sure you're not an idealist?

Do you now what idealism is? At any rate if you think freedom of expression is an abstract right you are even more cocooned in your own little world than I thought. Why don't you ask some people who have lived in societies without freedom of expression if it is just an abstract concept and see what they tell you?


Freedom of religion does not exist in capitalist society. No matter what your religion says, child sacrifice is against the law and if caught you will be punished. Nowadays it is not childrens' bodies that are sacrificed, but their minds. Filling kids' heads with patent nonsense is also considered unacceptable, but the exception is made for religion. Not for any good reason, though.

Who exactly gets to be the arbiter of what is "pointless nonsense"? There is certainly no consensus on the subject. Are we going to empower some committee with the authority to ban the expression of any view they don't like or perhaps we shall do it "democratically" with arbitrary bans of this that and the next thing?

Incidentally, I thought anarchists liked to speak of free association and whatnot? You are calling for society as a whole to ban a whole host of (non-violent!) activities with people having no ability to form associations where they will remain legal.


I consider the dichotomy of rationalism vs empiricism to be false. Pure reason would never have discovered the quantum world, relativity and other counter-intuitive aspects of reality, while empiricism alone is useless for formulating new theories. Science uses both methodological empiricism and reason, and hence cuts across the divide. The success of such an approach is undeniable.

Science is usually empiricist. Empiricism does not reject reason, rather it rejects the notion that there is any innate knowledge. Empiricists can still reason things through, we just hold that all starting premises must be drawn from experience and that the proof of out hypothesis will be borne out in practice. That is how (the majority of) science works.


Material reality is the ultimate objective standard, though. No matter what you personally believe, the nature of material reality means that you cannot live without eating food. In this manner the terms of debate are set not by either side but by something external.

All of this only applies if you already accept materialism. You think idealists cannot offer alternative explanations?

An engineer's approach to managing energy and resources would at least have the benefit of being more glued to reality. At least engineers, unlike bourgeouis economists, are held responsible if they fuck up. And boy have the economists fucked up! :ohmy:
Do you know how economics works? As someone trained in economics (and who is certainly not a bourgeoisie economist!), I feel like laughing when you say things like this. Economics cannot work like engineering because engineers can control variables and it is a much more predictable subject in general.

But let's here your side of this. In detail tell us what economists are doing wrong and how engineers would do it better?

[Killfacer]

The pope is not popular amongst catholics? Can you source that please, because it seems pretty unlikely.