Sam Harris: Atheists have no ‘blood on their hands’ for Chapel Hill murders

A am Harris addressed the role atheism may or may not have played in the murders of Deah Barakat, Yusor Abu-Salha, and Razan Abu-Salha by Craig Hicks in Chapel Hill, North Carolina last week.
He began by noting that while many have blamed the “militancy” in the atheist community for these murders, “there’s absolutely nothing in my work or my mind that is supportive of a crime like this, and I would hope that this would go without saying — but it probably can’t. The deluge of claims of equivalence between this crime, and the Charlie Hebdo atrocity and the daily behavior of a group like ISIS, has been astonishing to witness.”
“You can sense that people have just been waiting for a crime like this that could conceivably be pinned on atheism.”

“The analogy between militant atheism and militant Islam is a terrible one,” Harris continued. “It’s an anti-analogy. It is false in every respect. Atheists are simply not out there harming people on the basis of their atheism. Now, there may be atheists who do terrible things, but there is no atheist doctrine or scripture; and insofar as any of us have written books or created arguments that have persuaded people, these books and arguments only relate to the bad evidence put forward in defense of a belief in God. There’s no argument in atheism to suggest that you should hate or victimize or stigmatize whole groups of people, as there often is in revealed religion.”
Part of the reason that Harris believes atheism is being blamed is because people can’t fathom that a triple-homicide could be the result of a parking dispute. “This is the most common form of interpersonal violence! It never makes sense on paper!” he says. “You’re talking about people who fail to regulate their emotional states. And they have, in the US, ready access to weaponry that makes it incredibly easy to kill someone impulsively.”

“It could be that when Hicks starts talking, he’ll tell us how much he hates Muslims and he just wanted to kill a few; and he might even say he read The God Delusion, and The End of Faith, and God is Not Great, and took from these books some kind of rationale to victimize Muslims at random. I think it’s incredibly unlikely that that’s the case. I will be flabbergasted if Hicks says that his atheism drove him to commit these murders.”
“Whereas the next jihadist,” he added, “will almost certainly say that his religion mandated that he behave the way he did.”
Harris then returned to discussing the “anti-analogy” between the “militant” varieties of atheism and Islam, referring to it as a “moral hoax.”
“It is obvious that some instances of Muslim violence have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, and I would never dream of assigning blame to the religion of Islam for that behavior — but the problem, of course, is that there are teachings within Islam that explicitly recommend, in fact demand, violence under certain circumstances, circumstances which we in the 21st century, if we are decent human beings, will recognize as being morally insane.”

But, he said, “there is no such link between atheism or secularism, and violence of any kind. In any circumstance. There’s nothing about rejecting the truth claims of religious dogmatists — there’s nothing about doubting that the universe has a creator — that suggests that violence in certain circumstances is necessary or even acceptable.”
“All the people who are comparing these murders to Charlie Hebdo – or to ISIS, as insane as that sounds – are really trivializing a kind of violence that threatens to destabilize much of the world. And ironically it is violence whose principal victims are Muslim.”
“What we’re seeing,” Harris continued, “is that people like Glenn Greenwald and Reza Aslan — the usual suspects [as well as the] bevy of apologists for theocracy in the Muslim world — are using this very real tragedy in Chapel Hill to try to stoke a kind of mob mentality around an imagined atheist campaign of bigotry against Muslims. It’s an incredibly cynical and tendentious and opportunistic and ultimately dangerous thing to do.”

“I want to make one thing very clear,” he concluded. “In saying or writing or otherwise publishing the opinion that I have blood on my hands, and then backing that up with conscious misrepresentations of my views about Islam, that is a dangerous thing to do. It increases the risk to me and my family.”
“There are a number of people among [Greenwald's and Aslan's] readers who are proper lunatics, goons, and madmen — who are organized entirely around this variable of Islam and its importance to their lives and to the future of humanity.”
“And if you tell them, as Greenwald and Aslan repeatedly have, whether in their own words or by circulating the lies of others, that I want to nuke the Muslim world, or that I want to round Muslims up for torture, or that I’m a genocidal fascist maniac, or that I want to profile dark-skinned people at airports, or that I want to kill people for thought crimes, or that I have blood on my hands for the murders of three beautiful young people in North Carolina, this is dangerous.”


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/sam-harris-atheists-have-no-blood-on-their-hands-for-chapel-hill-murders/

Actually that is also not true... Although the recent murders Are NOT a case of Militant Atheism

Stalin was a militant atheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_%281928%E2%80%9341%29

but he is the only true one I can think of
there are others that are militant and are atheist but that is not the quite the same

veya_victaous wrote:Actually that is also not true... Although the recent murders Are NOT a case of Militant Atheism

Stalin was a militant atheist  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_%281928%E2%80%9341%29

but he is the only true one I can think of
there are others that are militant and are atheist but that is not the quite the same

http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/stalin-killed-for-political-reasons

https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/

I know I shouldnt but.......

I do find this amusing in a sort of schadenfreude manner....

we now have the athiest "leaders" if you like, the popes and "imans" of the athiest world

sounding exactly like the Muslim council of great britain (and any number of similar bodies) the jewish representatives, and the collective heads of the christian churches.....all rolled into one....


"ooooo...its nowt to do with us"

darknessss wrote:I know I shouldnt but.......

I do find this amusing in a sort of schadenfreude manner....

we now have the athiest "leaders" if you like, the popes and "imans" of the athiest world

sounding exactly like the Muslim council of great britain (and any number of similar bodies) the jewish representatives, and the collective heads of the christian churches.....all rolled into one....


"ooooo...its nowt to do with us"

Well where is the atheist/secular doctrine and ideology that calls upon them to harm religious people?

Which is his point here and even worse is how they tried to compare this crime to the Charlie Habdo crime, as if to deflect away Islamic extremism. Like he said it is absurd, where they are trying to in some ridiculous way lessen the countless problems with Islamic extremism.
If he did kill them because they were Muslim and it is a hate crime, what Atheist and Secular doctrine called upon him to commit this murder of 3 innocents Victor?
If you can find an atheist cult that has doctrines to commit hate and violence, then I am all ears.

Ahh Didge....I didnt say I agreed with it...I said it amused me to watch them squirming...exactly like the many Muslims and jews who are innocent of any crime and yet are targeted for their faith.

and whilst I may agree with you that there is no specific dogma or doctrine within athieism that gives rise to hate, what there is, is an assumption, (on the part of athieists) of a moral and intellectual superiority.

It is THIS that is only one small step away from a doctrine or dogma that says "I am better than you" and can tghus be justified to commit all kinds of horror.....

whats the difference between

my imaginary friend is better than your's
and
you believing in an imaginary friend makes me better than you

in principle none

so it is even possible for this "athieist" to have inferred a doctrine where none but arrogance exists....

sorry but it proves that
a) you cant always choose your followers
b) if you have followers your a cult even if you dont want to be
c) at least some of your followers are going to be cnuts
d) as a consequence...if you are a leading light in your cult...regardless of whether thats what you intended or not
YOU are going to be held responsible, along with all other members/beleivers for the misdeeds of the misguided nutters you have attracted....


welcome to "belief" you athieists

"Atheist Militarism" ?

I'LL file that one away with "Anarchist party" when it comes to examples of ludicrous and self-contradictory efforts at naming groups or associations of like-minded people..


ALSO, WHY do some groups of people have to attempt and 'pigeonhole' everybody who does some kind of crime, misdeed or wrong, or who simply decides to join in a protest/demonstration/strike action, into belonging to a certain group ~ WHAT has happened to some of those "old school"/old world concepts such as independence, choice, freedom of thought, 'acting off one's own bat/back' ?

WHY do certain groups of people - whether they be political dogmatists, religious zealots, mainstream journo's/TV reporters/internet bloggers - seem to have such a hard time getting their heads around such concepts..


OR ARE so many of them more likely even, to be assorted apologists, deliberately misdirecting, or plain old troublemakers/stirrers/agitators, themselves ???    

As an atheist, I don't feel like I'm better than anybody -- just that I'm right on this issue and the theists are wrong.

Ben_Reilly wrote:As an atheist, I don't feel like I'm better than anybody -- just that I'm right on this issue and the theists are wrong.

so its YOUR fault???

darknessss wrote:Ahh Didge....I didnt say I agreed with it...I said it amused me to watch them squirming...exactly like the many Muslims and jews who are innocent of any crime and yet are targeted for their faith.

and whilst I may agree with you that there is no specific dogma or doctrine within athieism that gives rise to hate, what there is, is an assumption, (on the part of athieists) of a moral and intellectual superiority.

It is THIS that is only one small step away from a doctrine or dogma that says "I am better than you" and can tghus be justified to commit all kinds of horror.....

whats the difference between

my imaginary friend is better than your's
and
you believing in an imaginary friend makes me better than you

in principle none

so it is even possible for this "athieist" to have inferred a doctrine where none but arrogance exists....

sorry but it proves that
a) you cant always choose your followers
b) if you have followers your a cult even if you dont want to be
c) at least some of your followers are going to be cnuts
d) as a consequence...if you are a leading light in your cult...regardless of whether thats what you intended or not
YOU are going to be held responsible, along with all other members/beleivers for the misdeeds of the misguided nutters you have attracted....


welcome to "belief" you athieists

First of he was rightly responded to people claiming he is behind such an attack with his words, where he always condemns violence and never promotes any. He is bound by the laws of his country
It is no nearer one step to anything because atheism is non-belief. There is nothing higher than the law of the land, with secularism, equality and well being. None of these views would allow or justify any kind of horror or murder in any shape or form, because atheism is simply no belief in Gods. There is nothing in that which has no view to harm people. Other factors would create that like anger, revenge etc. Not atheism, which is just really a word to describe those of who do not believe in any Gods


How can it be arrogant when the religious person believes they are right and the atheist is wrong. To them it is not an imaginary friend  but very real. If the religious person takes the view of them being arrogant or more to the point superior. Then the religious would concede to the atheist being right and that God does not exist. Hence you view on it forming arrogance would occur to someone who would concede that God does not exist and is now an atheist themselves. You did not factor in everything to your difference question there Victor hence why it was flawed. The religious person firmly believes God exist and they would not be able to claim arrogance, as it would be self defeating.


Last point sheer nonsense, as again atheism is just non-belief. There is no ideology behind this or any doctrine, so you ever choose to not believe is no different to someone ho does not believe in the immigration policy for example. You really cannot even call it a cult as how does something have a following, when you just simply do not believe? Atheists are certainly grouped together as non-belief, but they have no atheist ideology or doctrine to follow. Atheists do not have any Atheist leaders, all you have is some atheist that speak out based on doing so themselves. Where none of us are bound to each other, by anything other than the fact we use evidence as to what is real and what is not real. None of us are bound by anything, even the no belief, as we are just individuals who see no evidence for a God  We can even choose to disagree with some things on science if we like, where many religions have doctrine, ideology, leaders, interpretation etc. How does an atheists have to interpret about the view there is no evidence of a god? We do not believe in Gods.


Sorry me old mate, your postwasvery flawed

didge you fail to include in your evaluation the individual....

some folks...inevitably ...will seize on athieism as a "belief"...and treat it accordingly ...hence my point above

b) if you have followers your a cult even if you dont want to be

It has nothing to do with the intent, desires or whatever of those who choose to speak out.....

and points c and d follow as a natural consequence of that....

I will give another prime example why your comparison was flawed. Look at how Veya claimed he is right and Sm Harris wrong, based only on his beliefs. Now many of us have disagreed with Veya, but he cannot claim we are being arrogant and superior in regards to no evidence for any Gods, as he would concede we were right. He believes he is right. So a view on no evidence for a God being arrogant is again self defeating to someone religious who belies in Gods, as they do not need evidence to believe and think atheists are wrong.

darknessss wrote:didge you fail to include in your evaluation the individual....

some folks...inevitably ...will seize on athieism as a "belief"...and treat it accordingly ...hence my point above

b) if you have followers your a cult even if you dont want to be

It has nothing to do with the intent, desires or whatever of those who choose to speak out.....

and points c and d follow as a natural consequence of that....

Why would they treat as a belief, that makes utterly no sense, because they would be dismissing science to provide an answer. If they turn it into a belief, it becomes in fact very much a cult, that I very much doubt many if in fact none would join, because the only thing we back is no belief in God. As soon as someone writes an ideology and doctrine, with commands, views to follow etc its then a political ideology. What would the need be of that Victor when again (atheism is a poor choice of words as it can encompass many aspects) my standing as ell as many others is there is no evidence for God. People make their views on this but are not bound by anything outside this one view what they agree on or disagree on

They can decide to make a religion and doctrine out of atheism if they like, but it would only be proponents who signed up to this doctrine as followers.
You fail to grasp the point Victor, what someone does off their own back based on not believing in God would be done to their own reasoning, because we only state s atheists there is no evidence that Gods exist. It would become a political ideology, than no atheist would be bound to even follow.

and I'm telling you again you fail to account for the individual "nutters"

I can bet you....without fear ...that "out there"...somewhere"...... "someone" and likely multiple someones....consider atheism "their belief" and as such worthy of "enforcement"

Now this is of course NOT what dawkins and co want or would approve of...that goes without saying...BUT

my points still stand...

Its "human nature " if you like...

I recon in 6 months I could start a "cult of the great green bog brush" and have followers capable of all kinds of nuttery.....If that then attracted violent members...without my consent or desire.....who's "fault is that???


points a, b, c, and d would apply....


humans Didge...are possibly worse than you can imagine....

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:didge you fail to include in your evaluation the individual....

some folks...inevitably ...will seize on athieism as a "belief"...and treat it accordingly ...hence my point above

b) if you have followers your a cult even if you dont want to be

It has nothing to do with the intent, desires or whatever of those who choose to speak out.....

and points c and d follow as a natural consequence of that....

Why would they treat as a belief, that makes utterly no sense, because they would be dismissing science to provide an answer. If they turn it into a belief, it becomes in fact very much a cult, that I very much doubt many if in fact none would join, because the only thing we back is no belief in God. As soon as someone writes an ideology and doctrine, with commands, views to follow etc its then a political ideology. What would the need be of that Victor when again (atheism is a poor choice of words as it can encompass many aspects) my standing as ell as many others is there is no evidence for God. People make their views on this but are not bound by anything outside this one view what they agree on or disagree on
They can decide to make a religion and doctrine out of atheism if they like, but it would only be proponents who signed up to this doctrine as followers.
You fail to grasp the point Victor, what someone does off their own back based on not believing in God would be done to their own reasoning, because we only state s atheists there is no evidence that Gods exist

agreed 100% Didge...but like relatives (whom we cant choose )...unfortunately "ideas" seem to be unable to "choose" their followers....theres nowt so queer as folk....

darknessss wrote:and I'm telling you again you fail to account for the individual "nutters"
I can bet you....without fear ...that "out there"...somewhere"...... "someone" and likely multiple someones....consider atheism "their belief" and as such worthy of "enforcement"  
Now this is of course NOT what dawkins and co want or would approve of...that goes without saying...BUT
my points still stand...
Its "human nature " if you like...
I recon in 6 months I could start a "cult of the great green bog brush" and have followers capable of all kinds of nuttery.....If that then attracted violent members...without my consent or desire.....who's "fault is that???points a, b, c, and d would apply....
humans Didge...are possibly worse than you can imagine....

Does not matter about nutters, where again the only thing that is atheism is there is no evidence for Gods
That is it. Other than that they all follow their own politics and views.
If someone considers it a belief, what is this belief structure for a start? It would have to be something that does not have proof and non-believers do not need proof of anything as there is no evidence or proof of God. So ho would it be a belief.
I do not believe in Leprechauns, would would I create a belief system around this. A belief system would have to be something around concept I could not prove. I do not need to prove that no God exists, just as I do not have to for Leprechauns, as there is no scientific evidence for them. Hence why it would be very illogical to build a belief system around something you do not believe in. Its very much illogical mate,

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why would they treat as a belief, that makes utterly no sense, because they would be dismissing science to provide an answer. If they turn it into a belief, it becomes in fact very much a cult, that I very much doubt many if in fact none would join, because the only thing we back is no belief in God. As soon as someone writes an ideology and doctrine, with commands, views to follow etc its then a political ideology. What would the need be of that Victor when again (atheism is a poor choice of words as it can encompass many aspects) my standing as ell as many others is there is no evidence for God. People make their views on this but are not bound by anything outside this one view what they agree on or disagree on
They can decide to make a religion and doctrine out of atheism if they like, but it would only be proponents who signed up to this doctrine as followers.
You fail to grasp the point Victor, what someone does off their own back based on not believing in God would be done to their own reasoning, because we only state s atheists there is no evidence that Gods exist

agreed 100% Didge...but like relatives (whom we cant choose )...unfortunately "ideas" seem to be unable to "choose" their followers....theres nowt so queer as folk....

I understand where you are coming from Victor, I just think it is near enough illogical to base a belief system around something that already has no evidence for the existence of Gods
I m surprised I can think tonight to be honest Victor, have a stinking head cold and yes, might as well call it man flu.




Up to much this weekend?

yes Didge it is indeed highly illogical....

but whilst YOU may be capabe of Mr spock style logic 99%+ of the rest of humanity ISNT.
humans by nature are NOT logical creatures, nor, are most of them capable of logical thought (else advertising wouldnt work, and politics would be a lot simpler)

see You are comming from the POV of the "athiest camp" and thats all very good and correct
what I am saying is, that illogical and down right stupid as they may well be......there are some out there that will undoubtedly take the view I have outlined....
and some few MAY WELL act on their (personal) idiocy.

Now to do so i realise is merely "finding a convenient hanger" for their lunatic crimes, but isnt the same to be said for the "faith nutters" although as you quite rightly point out many "faiths" do actually sanction at least implicitly, the use of violence as a means to their ends. Thereby facilitating and encouraging those nut jobs......

the Real point is that like it or not....and whether or not they wanted it

dawkins and co have just been elevated to the hallowed halls of "leaders of something to blame for my crazy actions"

and I do find that somewhat amusing since that is EXACTLY what their arguments are supposed to counter....

a touch of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

agreed 100% Didge...but like relatives (whom we cant choose )...unfortunately "ideas" seem to be unable to "choose" their followers....theres nowt so queer as folk....

I understand where you are coming from Victor, I just think it is near enough illogical to base a belief system around something that already has no evidence for the existence of Gods
I m surprised I can think tonight to be honest Victor, have a stinking head cold and yes, might as well call it man flu.




Up to much this weekend?

might take the new toy out for a spin on some dirt tracks....try a bit of off roading.....

got to fit some electronic magic in it too....

had a nice morning out today....took a young lad, son of one of my landowners out clay shooting to our local clay ground

he's 13 and bloody 'ell can he shoot.....2nd time out and getting 35-40%

then went for a mooch round the wood...nowt about except a few manky crows.....

......

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

I understand where you are coming from Victor, I just think it is near enough illogical to base a belief system around something that already has no evidence for the existence of Gods
I m surprised I can think tonight to be honest Victor, have a stinking head cold and yes, might as well call it man flu.




Up to much this weekend?

might take the new toy out for a spin on some dirt tracks....try a bit of off roading.....

got to fit some electronic magic in it too....

had a nice morning out today....took a young lad, son of one of my landowners out clay shooting to our local clay ground

he's 13 and bloody 'ell can he shoot.....2nd time out and getting 35-40%

then went for a mooch round the wood...nowt about except a few manky crows.....

......

Sounds like fun packed day to me. I bet you love taking someone under your wing and training them, which speaks volumes (if I am right of course) about the qualities and skills you have that you wish to pass onto many others, ensuring they understand the right ways? Even reckon you are a tad softer than compared to how you are with other posters on here. Where you are directly teaching in having near limitless patients in helping them fully understand the right ways. So am not surprised his shooting is improving, he has a great teacher mate



So when are we going to see some new works you are working on or completed?

thanks for the compliment didge...yes i DO enjoy passing on skills, whether that be shooting or workshop skills or defensive driving.

Now...as for new work...I'm waiting for some new cutters comming ...that will allow me to work slate on the CNC machine I have a few ideas in waiting, and some nice pristine welsh slate

Got my primary saw bench in bits ATM...need to fit a new motor capacitor (which should be here monday)
and got a rewire due in the workshop to accomodate some extra sockets i now need .
(question for the theorists.....how many sockets do you need in a workshop.....................................................answer....ONE MORE THAN YOU HAVE GOT...... )

darknessss wrote:thanks for the compliment didge...yes i DO enjoy passing on skills, whether that be shooting or workshop skills or defensive driving.

Now...as for new work...I'm waiting for some new cutters comming ...that will allow me to work slate on the CNC machine I have a few ideas in waiting, and some nice pristine welsh slate

Got my primary saw bench in bits ATM...need to fit a new motor capacitor (which should be here monday)
and got a rewire due in the workshop to accomodate some extra sockets i now need .
(question for the theorists.....how many sockets do you need in a workshop.....................................................answer....ONE MORE THAN YOU HAVE GOT...... )

Look forward to seeing some more in the future then.
Just have this view you would and do make a very good teacher, though, us other posters suck ta being your students lol

Have a good evening mate, catch you later

It's really much ado about nothing.  Craig Stephen Hicks murdered three Muslims in Chapel Hill, NC, and in order to make out a hate crime one needs to find evidence of his state of mind re Muslims.

They can't find anything he said adverse toward Muslims.  But they can find some things he said about atheism. So now they are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Original Quill wrote:It's really much ado about nothing.  Craig Stephen Hicks murdered three Muslims in Chapel Hill, NC, and in order to make out a hate crime one needs to find evidence of his state of mind re Muslims.

They can't find anything he said adverse toward Muslims.  But they can find some things he said about atheism. So now they are trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

Didn't think about it that way, but you're right -- there's no actually logical reason his atheism prompted this. Just the ages-old cognitive tendency of people to look simple explanations for "man's blind indifference to his fellow man."

Frankly, I don't think his atheism was involved in Hick's mind.  I agree with others who say that atheism is not an affirmative doctrine that you can muster up a whole lot of wind behind.  With the Chapel Hill murders, I think it comes about as people try to do the square peg/round hole thing.

Atheism is like doubt or skepticism...something you might treat as a tool.  But it doesn't recall a script, or for that matter a whole lot of imagery.  It's not a cause.  Compare: the Bible or Koran.

I would suggest you are comparing the wrong "things" Quill


athieism is a "world view" just like christianity or Islam or whatever

It must be compared to the "Idea" ...NOT the "handbook"

as to it not being a "cause" to you , me , didge and probably 99% of those listening to dawkins and harris...it isnt....

to a few "specially selected" high grade nutkins, you can almost guarantee is IS....

as i said ...there is nowt so queer (or random) as folk.....

I'm NOT BTW suggesting that this IS the case in this particular instance...I have moved on from the specific to the general...

I understand. I agree that there are a few nutkins out there, who will make a silk purse out of anything.

But I really don't think atheism is much more that healthy doubt and skepticism.

darknessss wrote:didge you fail to include in your evaluation the individual....

some folks...inevitably ...will seize on athieism as a "belief"...and treat it accordingly ...hence my point above

b) if you have followers your a cult even if you dont want to be

It has nothing to do with the intent, desires or whatever of those who choose to speak out.....

and points c and d follow as a natural consequence of that....

+100

darknessss wrote:I would suggest you are comparing the wrong "things" Quill


athieism is a "world view" just like christianity or Islam or whatever

It must be compared to the "Idea" ...NOT the "handbook"

as to it not being a "cause"   to you , me , didge and probably 99% of those listening to dawkins and harris...it isnt....

to a few "specially selected" high grade nutkins, you can almost guarantee is IS....

as i said ...there is nowt so queer (or random) as folk.....

Atheism is an absence of belief. Atheism isn't believing that the supernatural does not exist; it is disbelieving that the supernatural does exist. If that seems like splitting hairs, you have to consider the critical difference between belief and disbelief.

Belief is deciding to accept a claim based upon justifying factors. Disbelief is deciding not to accept the same claim due to the lack of justifying factors. It's like the difference between passing an examination with a 75 percent and failing the exam with a 65 percent. To put it mathematically, belief is 1 and disbelief is 0, not -1.

I think people get confused about this distinction mainly because atheists can be outspoken and even evangelical ... and we can, but that doesn't mean we're religious. We can be fervent and try to persuade people that there isn't enough proof of the supernatural to buy into superstitious thinking and all the cognitive fallacies (and often guilt) that come along with it.

But the key is, we're not asking anybody to accept an unsupported assertion that something IS. We're asking people to consider the ample evidence that something is NOT. Because of that, atheism is no more of a religion than "off" is a TV show or an empty glass is a drink or nudity is a brand of clothing.

If a shiny being descended from the sky, surrounded by angels or fairies, and did something like turn a desert into a sea, and I saw it and I could confirm that other people saw it, and could confirm that it really had been a desert and now it was really a sea, I would believe in the supernatural. It's the lack of anything like that that causes me to disbelieve in the supernatural.

You would believe in the supernatural until you came into possession of a natural explanation...which might simply be an expansion of what is natural.

What you are describing is the difference between the null and the negative hypothesis. The negative hypothesis strives to prove something; the null hypothesis isn't proven, but simply confirmed.

we're not asking anybody to accept an unsupported assertion that something IS

yes you do.... the unsupported assertions that the sun is just a big ball of gas

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. [French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless

Original Quill wrote:You would believe in the supernatural until you came into possession of a natural explanation...which might simply be an expansion of what is natural.

What you are describing is the difference between the null and the negative hypothesis.  The negative hypothesis strives to prove something; the null hypothesis isn't proven, but simply confirmed.

but that begs the question what is 'natural' and what is 'supernatural'?
Because if we know something exists we often call it natural but things like Cosmic Neutrinos are pretty fucking close to Supernatural they pretty much obey none of the LAWS of Physics, and the Sun is actually More powerful and responsible for more than the 'supernatural' deities created to honor it.
So we already have a point where the natural is More Powerful than the supernatural.. we have already defined natural states that exceed what was considered supernatural

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You would believe in the supernatural until you came into possession of a natural explanation...which might simply be an expansion of what is natural.

What you are describing is the difference between the null and the negative hypothesis.  The negative hypothesis strives to prove something; the null hypothesis isn't proven, but simply confirmed.

but that begs the question what is 'natural' and what is 'supernatural'?

(Yes, I have been thinking that same thing throughout this discussion.  Suppose the demon hypothesis is real and all apparitions to us are really dreams.  What happens to free will then?)

'Natural' is a concept that came into vogue to distinguish 'artifice'.  The concept of natural law was the notion that there were certain timeless and universal concepts--theories--that describe the universe and the way it behaves.  Newton was dealing in natural law.  Einstein was dealing with natural law.  Together they expanded the total whole of what we know about the universe.

We came into a world in which we had only common, everyday experience to gives us understanding of the 'natural world'.  We personified.  We had fathers; others had fathers.  Didn't you ever notice, god has a beard and acts a lot like dad?  The father figure became the all-encompassing metaphor for god...one or more (neighbors had fathers too) highly powerful and seemingly omniscient persons who protected us, taught us and generally did all sorts of magical things, like start fires and build boats to go out on the water.  These were our experiences and god was born.

But dad passed away...we like to think he took to the air--I don't know why--and became the old man in the sky.  So, missing him, we remembered, and some of us wrote down what he had taught us and what he said about everything.  Religion was born.

We have been moving away from this very primitive notion throughout history.  God is a myth.  Religions are a collection of myths.  Metaphysics is really simply a word for saying, 'we don't know, we haven't learned that yet'.  Metaphysics should not be understood as a counter proposal (religion), but understood as simply: 'I don't know, we haven't learned that yet.'  That is the difference between a negative hypothesis and a null hypothesis.

What I mean by 'natural' is, once we embrace a new idea and nudge it over into the category of the familiar, it is no longer alien to us and we call it 'natural law'.  'Nature' means simply our understanding of our surroundings.  Newton taught us gravity; we nudged that over into the familiar.  Einstein taught us relativity; we nudged that over into the familiar.  Throughout history we have been nudging things from the realm of metaphysics over into the familiar world of 'natural'.  Religion is simply the primativity (the not understood universe) that we left behind.

veya_victaous wrote:Because if we know something exists we often call it natural but things like Cosmic Neutrinos are pretty fucking close to Supernatural they pretty much obey none of the LAWS of Physics, and the Sun is actually More powerful and responsible for more than the 'supernatural' deities created to honor it.
So we already have a point where the natural is More Powerful than the supernatural.. we have already defined natural states that exceed what was considered supernatural

Haha...as I am so fond of saying in another context, it's not about us.  You are taking the term 'natural' from ontology (study of the natural world) and turning it into a term about epistemology (study of how/why we know).  It's like looking out at all that exists, and saying with exasperation,  'we'll never know all of it!'  You are dealing with the philosophical questions of materialism, mechanics and generally, empiricism.  'Natural' is our field of understanding of the physical (experiential) world, and I optimistically predict that we will find and understand neutrinos, the sun, new universes and even new, or amended laws, and add that understanding to the laws of nature...which is, after all, simply a summation of all we know.

Look at it this way: It's not about what we know, it's about the ride.