Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[Carol]

Hello, Carol.
I'm sorry you were upset by my post. I do not enjoy upsetting people - far from it - but I have as much right to express my views as you have to be upset by them. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I do believe that Jesus, for example, was probably a real person with many good and, especially for the time, progressive ideas.

I suppose I was thinking more of the Old Testament stuff like Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark etc., both of which are demonstrably untrue and impossible. But of course, the believers have an unbeatable get-out clause as usual: God is magic so he can make anything happen.

It's God I was equating to Father Christmas, not Jesus. Although I also believe that much of the New Testament is invented, exaggerated, or adapted from other sources. Assuming Jesus existed, I would imagine him as being a charismatic preacher type in the Martin Luther King mould (only not so popular during his own lifetime).

Actually, what am I saying? God is nothing like Father Christmas! Especially in the OT he's a total psycho!

Best wishes,
Steve.

PS Does your smiley denote that you would like to hit me over the head with a hammer?

Hello Steve,

Oh dear. I was trying to make a joke! The joke being that I can accept your views on God and Jesus without any problem, but that when you mentioned The Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas not being real then I just had to say something. The smiley was part of the joke!

Most of my jokes on Casebook do seem to full flat on their little faces, I'm afraid.

As you say, you have as much right as I have to express your views.

Friends?

Carol

[Steven Russell]

Hello Steve,

Oh dear. I was trying to make a joke! The joke being that I can accept your views on God and Jesus without any problem, but that when you mentioned The Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas not being real then I just had to say something. The smiley was part of the joke!

Most of my jokes on Casebook do seem to full flat on their little faces, I'm afraid.

As you say, you have as much right as I have to express your views.

Friends?

Carol

Dear Carol,

It's clear to me now that I completely misread your post. Profound apologies. Yes, friends, absolutely. I only mentioned the smiley as a cheap crack so I could come back with "Not a very Christian attitude" or something.

I suppose it just goes to show how easy it is to misconstrue written communications. I'm sure if we'd had the exchange face-to-face, we both would have picked up on the jokes and sarcasm straight away.

I get it now and thanks for putting me straight. Apologies once again.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Steven Russell]

For those who do not believe religion is dangerous, have you seen the news story about a fourteen-year-old Pakistani girl? She spoke out on the issue of women's rights to an education and was shot in the head. The Pakistani Taliban have claimed responsibility. The girl remains in a critical condition. Sickening.

Steve.

[DVV]

Oh, yes, Steven. Muslims and Christians and Moloch believers are all the same.
Shall we compare Pasteur to Hitler ?

[DVV]

People do act differently according to what they believe in.
Atheists believe in different things, and can do many things.
Animal fans (dunno in English, and it's late) are ready to kill those who like corrida, even when they don't believe in God.
Stop thinking that the world will be perfect without religions.
It would be the same different ****, if I can say so.

[mariab]

The world might be a little bit more cerebral (less absurd) without religions. :-P

[Steven Russell]

Oh, yes, Steven. Muslims and Christians and Moloch believers are all the same.
Shall we compare Pasteur to Hitler ?

At last - Hitler! Nice one, DVV! And who said anything about the world being perfect without religion?

[Limehouse]

For those who do not believe religion is dangerous, have you seen the news story about a fourteen-year-old Pakistani girl? She spoke out on the issue of women's rights to an education and was shot in the head. The Pakistani Taliban have claimed responsibility. The girl remains in a critical condition. Sickening.

Steve.

Hi Steve,
There is a world of difference between religion and personal faith. Some religious people are dangerous because they corrupt the religion for their own (or group) ends. The majority of Muslims would say that the act of killing that young girl was a political, not religious act, and goes completely against the true Muslim faith.

Regards

Julie

[Limehouse]

An atheist who died an early and painful death from throat cancer. You fill in the blanks
Jordan

Are you suggesting God gave Hitchens cancer?

Three people I knew who died of cancer were the most faithful Christians you could hope to find. All three of them loved God unquestioningly and served him faithfully. They were the kindest, most generous people you could meet.

Did God give them cancer too?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

I have to say once again;

these "profitable prophets", who rip off the poor people willing to believe them and fly with their private jets etc. to praise the gospel will only make me more agnostic.

Examples? Peter Popoff and Joyce Meyers to begin with.

All the best
Jukka

[Steven Russell]

Hi Steve,
There is a world of difference between religion and personal faith. Some religious people are dangerous because they corrupt the religion for their own (or group) ends. The majority of Muslims would say that the act of killing that young girl was a political, not religious act, and goes completely against the true Muslim faith.

Regards

Julie

Hello, Julie.

I'm sure the last part of your post is true. The trouble is, people can use their faith to justify righteous indignation and bolster the idea that they are morally superior to non-believers because they go to church / mosque etc. It's not them committing evil acts, they're just carrying out the will of God.

Best wishes,
Steve

[Carol]

Dear Carol,

It's clear to me now that I completely misread your post. Profound apologies. Yes, friends, absolutely. I only mentioned the smiley as a cheap crack so I could come back with "Not a very Christian attitude" or something.

I suppose it just goes to show how easy it is to misconstrue written communications. I'm sure if we'd had the exchange face-to-face, we both would have picked up on the jokes and sarcasm straight away.

I get it now and thanks for putting me straight. Apologies once again.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Hello Steve,

No apologies needed! I agree with you about the problems of written communications. We can't see each other's faces or physical demeanour. (Perhaps just as well sometimes!).

Take care.

Carol

[Robert]

"I agree with you about the problems of written communications. We can't see each other's faces or physical demeanour."

Now you understand the problem all the gods have with their believers.

[Chris Scott]

"Just because science doesn't know everything does not mean that science knows nothing." - Stephen Fry

In the debate between religion and science why would I always come down on the side of science? For two very simple reasons:-
1) I would always prefer to seek knowledge from a system that works on the basis of evidence, even incomplete evidence, than belief
2) I would always prefer a system that not only acknowledges that it can be wrong but seeks out error to test and if necessary amend its own observations

What I find distasteful in religions - all religions - are the following:-
1) The unconscious, unacknowledged arrogance of the truly devout. If you are convinced that that you are a true follower of your faith and that your faith is based on absolute and revealed truth, then this is inevitable. This is what makes a farce of so called "dialogue" between faiths. If you have a devout Christan and a devout Muslim, they may say they respect each others' faith but at a fundamental level each MUST be convinced that the other is in error and will not be "saved." Seeking "common ground" is almost always based on incomplete or skewed appreciation of what the other faith actually says. Muslims and Christians seek to say that they have many links and much common ground and Muslims respect Christ under the name of Isa as a prophet. But the portrait of Christ and Mary as portrayed in the Koran would baffle and even offend many Christian. Mary gives birth to Christ alone out in the desert under a tree. Christ did not die on the cross but a substitute died in his place. And how far can a Muslim accommodate Christianity when its founder said "I am the way, the life and the truth. No one comes to the Father except through me?"
2) This arrogance extends into wanting to control everyone's lives. I have been told, without the smallest hint of irony, that I will "literally" burn in Hell because I do not believe, because of my sexual mores, because of my lifestyle, because of my insistence on such an annoying and unnecessary thing as proof... etc. The unavoidable basis of this belief is "I have a monopoly on truth and if you dare to disagree you will be doomed and horribly punished for all of eternity."
3) Those of any faith are utterly free to believe whatever puerile, unproven, blinkered nonsense they wish - just as I am free to not believe any of their systems of faith.
Much is made at present of "aggressive atheism" or secularism. Personally I believe that the best balance is achieved by the French model of public and private spaces. In France religion is a private activity and one is free to pursue faith within the law as one sees fit. But in public spaces all are citizens and in that setting religion has no role. Far from being worried about secularism I am more alarmed by the increasingly strident demands from religious quarters (usually in the guise of being "offended") for preferential treatment or supra legal protection. The recent absurd reactions to the silly little US film about Islam and the cartoons are a case in point. I do not follow Islam - in fact I make no secret of the fact that I loathe it as a belief system and the effect it is having on the country I live in - and of course I have no special regard for its founder. But attempts were made to tell me that I must "respect" the person and sanctity of a pre-medieval warmonger. Thank you but no! No more than I would agree to a ban on the Jerry Springer opera or the Dennis Potter play "The Son of Man" or a ban on the play some years back that was allegedly offensive to Sikhs.
It is all of a piece with the modern fetish of being "offended." The answers are simple:-
If you find something offensive, then be offended and walk away. Of course you have every right to voice your complaint - you do NOT have the right to deprive others of the object of your complaint if they do not share your views and opinions.
To anyone who says "I do not like it!" then I say "Then don't do it!" Attending Jerry Springer the Opera was never compulsory, no one was forced to watch "The Innocence of Muslims" or buy the French magazine with THOSE cartoons. Why should your belief - which I not only do not share but cannot even understand the basis of - circumscribe and dictate my life choices? Why do your beliefs and sensitivities and tastes take precedence over mine?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

A first-class post.

I whole-heartedly concur.

Regards,

Simon