Never thought I could. From my first post in this thread my point has been that Hitchens argument doesn’t really offer any valuable information.
Here’s the valuable information that it offers: religion is not necessary.
I see that you agree and never thought otherwise and don’t think that’s valuable.
I, obviously, respectfully disagree.
No intention to hammer this unnecessarily {too late you say 
} but I really don’t get this part of your argument.
*
Your* link provides a definition of malice aforethought that does not require hostility but seems to say the intent to kill another person, is enough to indicate malice. The planning and carrying out of a killing is enough to be malice aforethought.
I see nothing in that definition that legally requires hostility. The examples we’ve discussed shows that to be true. Dr Kevorkian had no hostility and was convicted of murder. It seems so clear to me that I’m sincerely dumbfounded at how you can continue to make this claim. Your first sentance in this post is not a difference of interpretation but clearly wrong. The point is how the law interprets malice when considering murder not how you’d like to, or how some dictionary does.
"ditto. I will look up the guy you mentioned and see if I can find anything on his argument about slavery."
Enjoy, it’s pretty interesting stuff. Don’t bother posting here if you’re looking for my reply, however, because my response isn’t based on any particular person’s expressed position on slavery, the nuances of that person’s statement, or whether you understand Prager to have meant something else.
I’m not interested in Prager or his positions or understanding them, I’m interested in the assertion that religions is necessary for good (like ending slavery) per se. My argument is a logical one against a particular position/thought/concept, not with the meaning of any particular person.
If you think there’s never been a person that has had the thought that ending slavery would have been impossible without religion, for example, then that’s fine.
It doesn’t matter because my objection is to that position in and of itself on its own.
My DVD of Into Great Silence arrived in the mail recently. I wonder if anyone takes a vow of silence for any other reason than religious devotion and service.
I know that there is such a thing as selective mutism, but I don’t know that I’ve ever read of it when it’s not combined with some emotional disturbance.
Any insights?
I agree that all positive acts could be done without religion when considering just the act.
I don’t agree that the conclusion “religion is not necessary” follows that observation.
What is necessary for one person may not be the same as what is necessary for another so the observation cannot make the point you mentioned in any realistic practical sense. It may be an intellectual observation that brings you some satisfaction but keep in mind that the opposite is also true. There is no negative act that is uniquely based on religion when we apply the standard equally
respectful disagreement noted
I have one. My daughter is a soprano at the Metropolitan Opera. {beams with pride}
Months ago she was having some vocal chord issues because of some training that didn’t work for her and actually did some damage. To recover her vocal health she was silent for 30 days. She said it was very zen. There are other examples of singers who must be silent for long periods of time to regain their vocal health.
Of course 30 days isn’t the same as say a year or several years.
Even if nobody actually holds it?
You did make specific statements about that argument and indicated it was one people had made and Hitchens was responding to. Are you saying it doesn’t matter if that was true or not?
Yup, even if not a single person that has ever lived or currently lives holds that belief. I’m interested in the validity of the assertion, per se.
What I’m interested in is philosophical discussion as to the tenability of certain beliefs and what they logically preclude or inevitably lead to. Hitchens and his detractors are take-off points for that intellectual exploration.
But if you’re in need of the specific person(s) that hold(s) the beliefs Hitchens is debunking, I’m sure you won’t have to look too far.
Depending on how you define religion (I defined it as beliefs that take into account extraworld considerations/afterlife benefits, etc.) I can imagine a person deciding to take a vow of silence without believing in afterworld considerations.
Frankly, after some of these discussions I’m seriously considering it. LOL
The very first murder in the Bible was Cain killing Able, now I do not believe that this story is a fact, but some person probably killed another before Religion was established.
As humans evolved they learned that working with others and animals made their lives better. Religions evolved and are still evolving. There are many religions and most do not condone evil, although some people may use theirs to that end. Religion is a human idea, animals kill and they have no religion.
Monavis
Now that’s funny. Don’t make me like you.
BTW, I think I would be spiritual in my feelings (the term I prefer) even if there were no promise of an afterlife. Don’t Buddhists have that as a goal – nonreincarnation? I could be misunderstanding that part of Buddhism.
Gasp! That would be my dream of heaven – to have a voice worthy of the Met! I’ve described that dream in detail elsewhere on the Dope.
All true. The assertion I’m making isn’t that killing would stop without religion so saying that animals kill without religion doesn’t negate anything I’ve asserted.
I’m asserting that religion provides one additional reason – beyond those set in place by animal instinct – to kill but has no redeeming value in that everything good it provides could just as well be done without it.
By the way, here’s one man that apparently holds that belief: Ron Fisher (wrote in question implying that without religion there is no morality).
But, then again, it’s obvious that the view is held although it’s irrelevant to my interest in the intellectual discussion. Anyone who’s heard of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter knows that the view is held.