I mildly disagree, having heard some of Dawkins' opinions on Islam.
But I don't really care what he thinks.
And again - Why do you? — Vera Mont

He is an influential (his opinions seems to have softened recently in some areas.)

I am concerned about the status of human beings in law and ideology.

For example:
"A Paralympic army veteran told stunned lawmakers in Canada when she claimed that a government official had offered to give her euthanasia equipment while fighting to have a wheelchair lift installed in her home"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/christine-gauthier-paralympian-euthanasia-canada-b2238319.html

Peoples beliefs attribute a different value to human life and death. People religious belief or atheism and metaphysical stance are being used to advocate for policies that effect us all.

I do not believe the elderly or disabled or mentally should euthanised by stealth or encouragement.

People religious belief or atheism and metaphysical stance are being used to advocate for policies that effect us all. — Andrew4Handel

I have no problem with your faith. You can linger as long as your health care insurance lasts; I won't unplug you against your will. But you just bloody well keep your pious paws off my right to die. Religious people have caused an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering with their "value of human life" claptrap - not by 'stealth and encouragement', whatever that means, but by the threat of insane asylum, prison or hanging.
The mainstream churches' "value of human life" vs capital punishment policies are especially intriguing as to the rationale.

I believe every person of sound mind has the right to decide when and how they will exit the world, including living wills and power of attorney for when/if they are no longer of sound mind. This means I'm against slaughter, torture, murder, war, the criminal negligence of letting half-wits run around with deadly weapons, capital punishment and ethnic cleansing.
If that's a morally inferior position to the "human life is sacred, unless it's in somebody we're mad at; non-human life is worthless, and we get to define who's human", I can live with that inferiority.

Atheists want religion to be perfectly clear and this itself is against faith. Faith involves using discretion and reacting even when reason doesn't give a reason. "How am I supposed to know which religion to follow" implies one is not immersing themselves in religion

:cool:

How can you disbelieve in something you have heard of with out any reasons? — Andrew4Handel

Wtf. Now you're moving goal-posts. :roll:

A definition of X is one thing and argument for X something else altogether.

The Hitch makes polemical points (rather than philosophical arguments) for irreligion, so his "numinous" gambit worked fine in those public debate performances.

Yeah, I think it was a gambit. I'm not sure if it was a wise one or not. He was a tour de force in debates, there is little doubt of that, but this particular gambit left him open to BS reactions such as:
anglican samizdat.

I think Hitchens was a patchy debater. He had terrific presence, a sonorous voice and was skilled at rhetoric - but re-watching some of his debates, it's clear he has a series of often glib anti-religious talking points and regularly fails to directly address the arguments of the other side. This is most apparent in his debate with William Lane Craig. Now physicist Sean Carroll utterly obliterated Craig in a debate that I often watch as a cheer me up. Craig is a smug cocksucker.

BS reactions such as:
anglican samizdat. — universeness

Pure BS. We're all "open" to such "reactions" no matter how loose or rigorous our arguments. I prefer sublime cathartic or ecstatic to the more ambiguous terms "numinous" or "transcendent", but in the contexts which The Hitch had used them I think his irreligious meaning was clear enough.

Atheists want religion to be perfectly clear and this itself is against faith. — Gregory

We are not Borg. Some atheists may want that - in an argument. Most of these discussions are started by a theist and the opening word is usually "Atheists"... want, think... believe... say... claim. Some atheist nearly always bites and come back: No, I don't; I think... this, thus and so. Then some theist responds as if he knew better what the other person thinks, and some atheist does likewise and it turns into a bunch of kids throwing sand in one another's eyes.

Please. Do not tell me what I want, what I think, or what motivates me. I already know, and you still don't seem to, even though I've told you.

"How am I supposed to know which religion to follow" implies one is not immersing themselves in religion — Gregory

Nobody asks that.

Faith involves using discretion and reacting even when reason doesn't give a reason. — Gregory

I believe this to be true, whether the subject understands it or not.

Religious people have caused an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering with their "value of human life" claptrap — Vera Mont

What are your examples here?

You don't personally have to value human life but I want to live in a society that values human life and doesn't endorse or encourage suicide and devalues palliative health care and encourages the elderly and disabled to feel like a burden.
Capital punishment doesn't place value on human life. Peoples moralities are inconsistent and hypocritical.
You say religious people have caused immense suffering but which ones? All of them what about the communist atheist regimes I mentioned? Who is responsible for the immense suffering caused by two world wars?

This is most apparent in his debate with William Lane Craig. Now physicist Sean Carroll utterly obliterated Craig in a debate that I often watch as a cheer me up. Craig is a smug cocksucker. — Tom Storm

I have watched the debate between him and Lane Craig twice and I don't know why Hitch did not bury him. I don't think Craig won the debate against Hitchens but I do agree that Hitch did not nail him to his own petard, in the way he could have. Craig was destroyed in his exchange with Sean Carroll and then, he was just overwhelmed, by Roger Penrose and was reduced to inputting humbled single sentences, every now and then. Finally, Sean, Roger, Carlo Rovelli et al, got together and totally debunked his Kalam Cosmological argument and killed it stone dead. Only Craig and any remaining Kalam fundamentalists, believe that some kind of defibrillation is possible on the Kalam.

:up:

What are your examples here? — Andrew4Handel

Lots. But I'm not having that debate again.

I want to live in a society that values human life and doesn't endorse or encourage suicide and devalues palliative health care — Andrew4Handel

And I want to live in a compassionate society that helps people as long as they can be helped, then lets them go when they decide it's time for them to go. I do not believe in the abstract "value of human life". Life has value to the one [not exclusively humans] living it and the ones who are affected by it. I do believe in the autonomy an dignity of individuals.

That's why we have this struggle against religious politics. I do not wish to impose my values on you, but you want to impose yours on all of society.
You want old people not to feel like a burden, but who is supposed to carry them? The government that enacts laws against assisted suicide does not provide quality homes or care for old people; allows them, quite often, to be neglected and abused in the institutions to which they're relegated when they can no longer pay their way in society at large.

The US long-term care system — such as it is — is broken. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are on waiting lists for home-based care. More than 40 million people report that they have cared for a loved one over 50 without any pay in the last year. The United States ranks near the bottom of developed economies in the number of older adults who receive long-term care at home. Meanwhile, America’s nursing homes are staffed by overwhelmed and underpaid workers, and for-profit takeovers of those facilities have led to worse care for patients.

It's a lot easier to want than to solve; a lot cheaper to decree than to repair.

You say religious people have caused immense suffering but which ones? — Andrew4Handel

The powerful ones, from Popes through kings and Protestant legislatures who took the Bible as their guide in formulating legal codes.

The Bible views suicide as equal to murder, which is what it is—self-murder. God is the only one who is to decide when and how a person should die. We should say with the psalmist, “My times are in your hands” (Psalm 31:15).

I especially like this bit:

Some consider Samson’s death an instance of suicide, because he knew his actions would lead to his death (Judges 16:26–31), but Samson’s goal was to kill Philistines, not himself.

killing other people is fine and holy - as long as they don't want to die.

Atheism is the absence of belief in God.
— Agent Smith
Every monotheism is "the absence of belief" in every god except "the one God" ... that's not saying much. I prefer to be clear: either (A) belief that there aren't any gods or (B) disbelief in every god. – they are roughly synonymous as far as I'm concerned (and is my preferred definition of atheism until about fifteen years ago when I traded-up from mere clarity to precison ...) Anyway, the latter formulation (B) may seem more defensible than (A), but it's not, as they are two sides of the same shekel; complementaries such that (A) warrants (B) and (B) assumes (A).

Smith, my point is: disbelief is a mode of active belief and not a passive "lack of belief" as Andrew4Handel's thread's title (OP) suggests. — 180 Proof

Well, that's absolutely amazin'! I couldn't have figured that out on my own mon ami. Gracias, muchas gracias.

And I want to live in a compassionate society that helps people as long as they can be helped, then lets them go when they decide it's time for them to go. I do not believe in the abstract "value of human life". Life has value to the one [not exclusively humans] living it and the ones who are affected by it. I do believe in the autonomy an dignity of individuals. — Vera Mont

Reminds me of a quote by Montesquieu
"Life was given to me as a favor, so I may abandon it when it is one no longer."

I do not wish to impose my values on you, but you want to impose yours on all of society. — Vera Mont

You are making things up here.

I mentioned this case:"A Paralympic army veteran told stunned lawmakers in Canada when she claimed that a government official had offered to give her euthanasia equipment while fighting to have a wheelchair lift installed in her home"

This is in Canada not the USA and I am, in the UK not the USA and we have a Free health service.

Assisted suicide is legal in Canada who also have free health care. The issue is the way it has spiralled inappropriately so the preservation of life is being less and less valued.

People values are imposed on each other through democracy and when one persons values triumph another persons loses out.

You are clearly expressing your biases here which seems to prove my point in the opening post. Atheism is not usually just a lack of belief in God.

I was involved with the care my brother who died a couple of years ago after a 25 year illness that paralysed him for many years. He was a Christian and I am sure that gave him some comfort. It was a horrible situation but he always asked to be kept alive until the last moment so I have a lot of experience around the issue of severe illness, palliative care and how the health service deals with these issues.

Nobody is authorized or empowered to lay that burden on me. My beliefs and unbeliefs are subjective and autonomous; I owe nobody a justification for them. Actions are - or may be - a different matter. — Vera Mont

Burden of proof is a social convention governing debates/arguments, so yes, in a sense, they are. But if you don't care whether people listen or engage with you, then there's nothing stopping you from not abiding by this social convention. As with any other social convention; you don't have to wipe your shoes or wash your hands, but if you don't, people probably won't invite you over for dinner anymore.

And of course, if you never engage in arguments or debates then you aren't making any claims, and therefore not incurring a burden of proof. But if you are engaging in arguments/debates, and are making claims, then you bear a burden of proof to support those claims if called upon to do so, no less than anyone else; contrary to the common canard, burden of proof doesn't distinguish between positive and negative claims, or theistic or atheistic; any claim you make incurs a burden of proof.

Epistemic justification is a bit different, but in some ways analogous- our views and positions are only reasonable to the extent that they are based on good and sufficient reasons. If you don't care whether your views are reasonable or not, one can believe whatever baseless nonsense one wants. But most atheists want their views to be reasonable (and most people in general, I imagine), which means that atheism, like any other view or position, must be based on good and sufficient reasons or evidence.

I mentioned this case:"A Paralympic army veteran told stunned lawmakers in Canada when she claimed that a government official had offered to give her euthanasia equipment while fighting to have a wheelchair lift installed in her home" — Andrew4Handel

She claimed. OK. Did he force anything on her? So far, it doesn't sound like much of a crime.
But that's not what I was answering, was it? (Are her past occupation or present avocation significant to the case, or are they just thrown in for emotional effect?)

You are making things up here. — Andrew4Handel

Am I?

I want to live in a society that values human life and doesn't endorse or encourage suicide and devalues palliative health care — Andrew4Handel

This is in Canada — Andrew4Handel

I know that. Because after a long, arduous fight, in which many people suffered through years of litigation, against people who think they know better what is right for us than we do ourselves, we finally made assisted suicide - under stringent regulations - legal. What you cite is unlikely to have been legal - but nor was it lethal.

in the UK ...we have a Free health service.

No, you don't. You have a government-run universal health insurance scheme. It is very expensive, under attack from private enterprise, criticized from all directions, undersupported and overburdened - probably under just as much stress as ours.

The NHS is experiencing some of the most severe pressures in its 70-year history.

The cost-of-living crisis is compounding desperate conditions in the UK’s social care system, following the widespread collapse of care standards during the COVID pandemic, culminating from decades of privatisation and austerity cuts.

I used the US example, because they have more religious institutions than the UK or Canada, and we would expect to see more church supported elder care, but basically, we're all in the same deep doo-doo: too many old people, too many diseases, not enough resources.

People values are imposed on each other through democracy and when one persons values triumph another persons loses out. — Andrew4Handel

Not quite. If you win, I lose my autonomy; I become subject to your values, no longer free to make my own life decisions. If I win, you lose nothing except power over other people: you're free to do as you please with your life. That's why I have to fight you, even though I would much prefer not to.

Burden of proof is a social convention governing debates/arguments, so yes, in a sense, they are. — busycuttingcrap

]

Debates and arguments, yes. If one has made a claim, one should be able to support it.
Demanding that I prove why I don't believe something is not a debate.

It often seems to me that some atheists use the lack-theism definition as a way of getting out of having to meet their burden of proof — busycuttingcrap

Proof of what, exactly?
"People tell a story. I find that story implausible, so I don't believe it."
"You haven't proved that it's not true!"
And I maintain that it's not my job to prove or disprove it. It's somebody else's story.

. Did he force anything on her? So far, it doesn't sound like much of a crime. — Vera Mont

That tells us a lot about your judgement.

That tells us a lot about your judgement. — Banno

Does it? Then record this: I have not judged and never condemned anyone on hearsay.

Fun fact: Offering somebody the means of death is a big bad deal. Selling and donating weapons off mass destruction is international business.

Proof of what, exactly?
"People tell a story. I find that story implausible, so I don't believe it."
"You haven't proved that it's not true!"
And I maintain that it's not my job to prove or disprove it. It's somebody else's story. — Vera Mont

Proof of any claims they make. Atheists can, and very often do, engage in debates or arguments, and so end up making claims. Claims for which they bear a burden of proof. But again, obviously if you don't engage in arguments and so don't ever make any claims, burden of proof doesn't apply... But epistemic justification still does. Any intellectual view or position we make, any propositional attitude we adopt, is reasonable to the extent that it is based on good and sufficient reasons... and that includes rejecting or failing to believe a given proposition. Even suspension of judgment must be epistemically justified in order to be reasonable.

Now, if one doesn't care whether ones atheism or agnosticism is reasonable, then no one is going to force them to base their views on good and sufficient evidence or reasons. But mostly people aspire to be reasonable, and atheists in particular. But contrary to the conventional wisdom in some very-online and philosophically-illiterate secular spaces, atheism, even of the lack-theism variety, is just as susceptible to epistemic justification as any other view or position. The good news is that atheism can meet this burden-whether of proof or justification- because the totality of the evidence strongly supports atheism/naturalism and the hypothesis that humans create gods and not the other way around.

:100:

Atheists can, and very often do, engage in debates or arguments, and so end up making claims. — busycuttingcrap

Then those atheists should support those claims. I don't know exactly who made what claims and how they justified it. All I claim is my own disbelief, the reasons for which and the reasoning behind which I have explained many times.
As far as I'm concerned, "proof" doesn't apply to narrative. I don't demand that anyone introdude me to their patron deity, or demonstrate salvation or prove that a man with with the head of a falcon called the world out of a water mass. I simply fail to be convinced by the narrative.
Also, I defend those who do believe the narrative, because i acknowledge that faith is subjective.
So, again: What is it I'm supposed to have claimed that requires proof?

Um, right. That was my point all along. And also that, in at least some instances, people seem to be insisting on the lack-theism definition of atheism in order to avoid having to meet either burden of proof and/or epistemic justification (even when their own views would more properly fall under the older, traditional definition of atheism as explicit rejection of theism). I didn't say that all do, or that anyone in particular does.

didn't say that all do, or that anyone in particular does. — busycuttingcrap

Fine. I dislike being so often swept up in raid on Dawkins et al, just because I also call myself atheist.

Oh trust me, I know the feeling all too well (being an atheist myself)- the intellectual legacy of the "New Atheists" is... a mixed bag, to put it mildly. But that was also why I wasn't calling out anyone in particular, and was mostly talking about dynamics that I've seen elsewhere, typically forums/boards/etc with a less philosophically sophisticated userbase than PF/TPF.

It often seems to me that some atheists use the lack-theism definition as a way of getting out of having to meet their burden of proof and/or epistemic justification. — deletedmemberbcc

I didn't know I had a burden of proof. Especially as I have nothing to prove. I'm equally sure I don't have to justify any position I hold.

If you make some claims and I don't think that you have good reasons for holding to them then I will not believe your claims. I have no position on God. I have no personal concept of God. All I know about Him is what others tell me. So I make no claims.

Consider Richard Dawkins for example. Religion pours hot coals on his mind everyday and it clearly has caused him a lot of suffering — Gregory

Fundamentalists cause him (and me) some angst. Religion? Not so much. Unless it interferes with me and mine.

Atheists want religion to be perfectly clear and this itself is against faith. Faith involves using discretion and reacting even when reason doesn't give a reason. "How am I supposed to know which religion to follow" implies one is not immersing themselves in religion — Gregory

Get some consensus going, Greg. If there was only one god, only one religion and all adherents believed the same thing then I wouldn't be an atheist.

You can't all be right, but...

Craig is a smug cocksucker. — Tom Storm

Having found this forum after spending a considerable time on various Christian forums, I am giddy with the realisation that here I can actually type something akin to 'Craig is a cocksucker' and not be imediately banned.

Be still my beating heart...