RIP Christopher Hitchens

[Bakustra]

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

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

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

[Count Chocula]

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

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

[Count Chocula]

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

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

You fail.

PS Is this a dogpile yet?

[Bakustra]

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

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

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Count Chocula, has it occurred to you that the fact that the golden rule appears in multiple and isolated cultures may point to the idea the golden rule is an innately universal human trait as opposed to something born from a specific religious thought?

[Count Chocula]

That's where atheistic morality comes in - if we can learn it without asking God, we don't need him to be moral people... and that morality can exist even if God doesn't (just like the rest of the universe form the athestic viewpoint).

I'm okay with that. Man knows the Church was wrong about Galileo! Empathy and the Golden Rule seem to be good starting points for teaching a youngling morality without religion. Reaching large amounts of people to teach a common morality, that has been tested and found mostly beneficial, seems to have been best done by various faiths. Atheists don't have Sunday anti-worship, and to go back in the thread that's why I've asked where atheists get their rules for morality.

[mr friendly guy]

I see. You're taking the position that atheism and theism are mutually incompatible. Good luck with trying to force your views upon the world.

And back to what he wrote.

Seriously, it's not like was declaring a crusade. He was making various arguments why theism was wrong - either morally or factually. The mechanism was making people think, not the threat.

How is this even forcing his views onto the world?

Bakustra, I will contend that the sort of confrontational atheism that Hitchens was known for is more constructive than silent atheism. Theists ALREADY view atheists negatively. They always have. Not all of them, of course, but the existence of non-believers is a threat to theism. Just reminding Christians that atheists exist will cause someone, somewhere, some offense! You can't put up a billboard saying "Don't Believe In God? You're not alone." - a very unthreatening message other than to say 'atheists exist' - without people protesting about it, complaining about it, and there being news stories about how people are TERRIBLY UPSET over the poster.

Thanas can most probably answer this better. However IIRC when Protestantism came up, Catholics tried to suppress them brutally. When the Protestants fought back and were somewhat successfully, did tolerance appear. Granted these days Theists aren't trying to use the same amount of brutality on atheists, but then atheists are only fighting back with words.

People gravitate towards Hitchens and Dawkins because they make a spectacle, but Dennett does a better job of getting across the philosophical problems with particular religious views without seeming unnecessarily condescending. He also emphasizes the moral foundations for a happy life that exist independently of religion, which Dawkins seems weak at doing. Most people, though, don't seem as interested in taking the time to look at things in a more reasoned and sedate way.

Maybe when he writes (I haven't read his books so I won't comment), but certainly not in public speaking. He mumbled during his debate with Dinesh D'Souza while Hitchens eviscerated the man. Myself, and presumably you do as well, recognise that internet debate is most probably more conducive to letting both sides get their points across, as you have time to read the source material, think about what you are going to say etc. However I am willing to bet most people respond best to "showmanship" when it comes to public debate, and Hitchens was certainly much better at it than Dennett, even though both arguably had valid points.

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

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

You fail.

PS Is this a dogpile yet?

So do you have any evidence that the teaching of Hammurabi's rules spread to ancient China via contacts? Otherwise non theists came up with a version of their rule INDEPENDENTLY of religions. The fact they came up with it later is irrelevant to his point.

[Alyeska]

That's your third post in a row where you tried to dismiss an argument due to a (barely related) post on another board.

While you do have a legitimate argument, you do not get to play the innocent victim. You set this up. So now you get to debate the position and follow the rules.

[Count Chocula]

So do you have any evidence that the teaching of Hammurabi's rules spread to ancient China via contacts? Otherwise non theists came up with a version of their rule INDEPENDENTLY of religions. The fact they came up with it later is irrelevant to his point.

Can you say The Silk Road? It existed long before Marco Polo discovered it. Anyway, I don't have to prove or disprove it. That ball's in your court.

[Count Chocula]

While you do have a legitimate argument, you do not get to play the innocent victim. You set this up. So now you get to debate the position and follow the rules.

DXIII has been debating in this thread. Thanas' sole contribution has been "I'll take the Stoics for $1000 Alex!" in the last four pages and several more TROLLL GRRR posts. Plus his first Hitchens sucks for advocating Iraq war post. WRT DXIII, Thanas has been fluff and threats and shit for the topic.

[Alyeska]

While you do have a legitimate argument, you do not get to play the innocent victim. You set this up. So now you get to debate the position and follow the rules.

DXIII has been debating in this thread. Thanas' sole contribution has been "I'll take the Stoics for $1000 Alex!" in the last four pages and several more TROLLL GRRR posts. Plus his first Hitchens sucks for advocating Iraq war post. WRT DXIII, Thanas has been fluff and threats and shit for the topic.

Thanas has valid concerns. I was just making sure that the concerns become a non issue. And it looks like D13 is conducting actual discussion. So I am satisfied.

[Count Chocula]

Cool. Point of order, no offense intended.

[Sinewmire]

Don't want to derail the thread, but I'll very much miss Christopher Hitchens, I heard about his death at 6am this morning when I got up for work, and it was a dark note to start my day on: I'm a fan of his debates.

The most important thing about him, in my opinion, was how he encouraged people to think and how entertaining he was. He showed the same politeness SDN shows - the real politeness is being honest, not dressing up lies in fancy words. Swear and insult and rage all you want, but back up your claims!

I, too, disagree with him on issues such as the War on Terror, but I understand his reasons. Cruelty must be opposed. That said, I'm not sure the World Police haven't inflicted more cruelty and made things worse.

[mr friendly guy]

So do you have any evidence that the teaching of Hammurabi's rules spread to ancient China via contacts? Otherwise non theists came up with a version of their rule INDEPENDENTLY of religions. The fact they came up with it later is irrelevant to his point.

Can you say The Silk Road? It existed long before Marco Polo discovered it. Anyway, I don't have to prove or disprove it. That ball's in your court.

More of your evasions Chocky? Why am I note surprised. You asked if atheist had a golden rule with the implication (along with your other statements) that you required theism to be able to come up with something like that in the first place. People put forward evidence, including that of Confuscius. Your counter claim is that religion invented it first, which only becomes relevant if you can show this idea spread subsequently to non theist areas, otherwise the evidence suggests that it was created independently. We know Chinese made goods travelled from China to the Mediterranean and vice versa because we have physical evidence of the goods. Ideas are harder to verify, but presumably evidence would be in the form of translation of texts. This trying to shift the version of proof is just evasive bullshit, but its hardly a shock.

Edit - edited for clarity

[Count Chocula]

mr friendly guy,

The Golden Rule is cited first in a religious context, and not my religion either so my dog's not necessarily splashing after that mallard.

You say I evade, yet you provide no proof one way or the other. Put up or shut up asshole.

[mr friendly guy]

mr friendly guy,

The Golden Rule is cited first in a religious context, and not my religion either so my dog's not necessarily splashing after that mallard.

So? This shows that other people, ie atheists didn't come up with the idea independently how exactly?

You say I evade, yet you provide no proof one way or the other. Put up or shut up asshole.

I did show how you evaded dipshit. Lets run it for you again, using logic.
1. You implied atheists don't have an equivalent of a golden rule.
2. Examples were given.
3. You claim religions invented it first (implication is that atheist wouldn't come up with it independently). Starts jerking off to that.
4. Everyone goes so what? They still invented it independently. (A concept you don't seem to grasp, hey maybe if theists patent it to non existing patent office then they can try claiming some other guy from far away who has never heard of the idea copied it right?)
5. You - no they didn't.
6. Me - so provide evidence the idea spread, you know like translated documents to prove part 5, since the two regions are quite far away, and its not like we had internet back or teleconferencing back in those days.

[Count Chocula]

Nice "proof" unfriendly guy. Do you have evidence that's not a logic chain built upon your suppositions? Citations would be nice.

[Kryten]

So you quote Confucius who lived oh, about 1000 years AFTER Hammurabi.

Hammurabi's code was forgotten after his reign-we only know about it because we recovered one of the original Stele it was written on.

[Channel72]

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, the Golden Rule isn't even included in Hammurabi's Code. Hammurabi's Code includes the lex talionis, which, while arguably congruous to the Golden Rule in many ways, isn't really the same idea. It's less about mutual reciprocity and more about the scope of revenge.

[SCRawl]

Destructionator's worthless trolling attempt (and the subsequent conversation with Thanas) have been split out into HoS. The only thing keeping me from getting really annoyed about it is the fact that a useful discussion came from it.

The lesson we all should take away from this is not that trolling is good, but rather that anyone can get lucky. I would add to that the point that no one should ever count on getting lucky.

[Elfdart]

I used to admire Hitchens. I have two autographed copies of his books: For the Sake of Argument and Prepared for the Worst (one of the best op-ed chronicles of the 80s -the essay "Lies, All Lies!" is must reading for anyone who is not a member in good standing of Von Reagan's death cult). I would grab any magazine that he wrote for and would watch CSPAN when he would come on and debate (and PWN, as the kids say nowadays) the usual rogue's gallery of Washington hacks. I met him in 1995 when he was promoting Hell's Angel, his documentary about Mother Teresa. I was a fan.

I stopped admiring him in the late 1990s when Hitchens went from being a left-wing critic of Bill Clinton (as was everyone else at The Nation. and I agreed with them since Clinton was awful) to being a crazed Mark David Chapman-style Clinton hater, obsessed with Clinton's cock. His special pleading for holocaust denier David Irving was another turd in the punchbowl. By the time he became a war whore in 2002, and a fluffer for Dubya in 2003, I wasn't really interested in anything he wrote because right-wing hacks did that sort of thing much better than he ever could. Then he showed his true colors and what a repulsive piece of shit he really was.

In the late summer of 2005, when Cindy Sheehan was single-handedly neutering the Bush regime over the Iraq War, Hitchens slithered out of the nearest sewer to try to smear Sheehan. How? With a forged e-mail. This is the same technique he tried on George Galloway, who took great delight in humiliating Hitchens as "a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay". It takes a true lowlife piece of shit to use a forged document to slime a person, especially a woman whose son was killed in the very same war that Hitchens was a cheerleader for.

Last fall, another polemicist with a fondness for David Irving died. Joe Sobran was a much more talented writer than Hitchens, and he conducted himself in a more dignified manner. This explains why Sobran spent the last twenty years of his life in obscurity while Hitchens gets the full celebrity treatment. It really does pay to be a troll.

[General Mung Beans]

So you don't seem to mind that Hitchens admired real mass murderers like Lenin or Trotsky or that he once embraced Marxism but don't like he dared support the Iraq War.

[Elfdart]

So you don't seem to mind that Hitchens admired real mass murderers like Lenin or Trotsky or that he once embraced Marxism but don't like he dared support the Iraq War.

He wasn't an admirer of Lenin or Trotsky in the 1980s , which is when I started reading him (or if he was, he kept it to himself).

[Count Chocula]

Elfdart: I admired Pol Pot and his plan to make city folk grow crops in the hinterlands way back when. I also thought Bill Ayers was right on when he and Bernardine Dorhn said we'd need to kill about 25 million Ammuricans in reeducation camps when the revolution came.

Now I regret those opinions. Am I still an asshole?

[Patrick Degan]

Reciprocal altruism is a well-established and observed trait of primate behaviour and exists as an elementary group-survival strategy in evolution. And since we humans are primates, this trait is also embedded in our own behaviour patterns as much as with bonobo chimpanzees. The "golden rule" would have ended up being codified with or without a religious context in any case because the underlying trait behind the "rule" is hard-wired into our brains.