Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[Steven Russell]

Well said, Chris!

What really riles me is that we are supposed to pussyfoot around these Holy Joes because of their "beliefs" (which are utterly and transparently nonsensical) while those of us who base our beliefs on evidence are demonised.

The bottom line is that God is a fairy tale. Cooked up by primitive peoples who had no better way to make sense of the world around them. It's easy to imagine how that happenned independently around the world back in the stone age. But today we have a better understanding of things so God is not required. He may be a comforting presence to many but let's face it: he ain't real.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Errata]

What we have here is a rejection of religion and and an attitude of dismissive rejection of anyone with faith, and it is completely based on Christianity. Which is arrogant. There are atheists all over the world, yet it is only in the West, in Christian dominated cultures where people are considered idiots for believing in a god of some kind. Think about that. There are people in India, in Japan, in Vietnam, in Africa, who do not believe in any kind of religion, yet they do not publish books condemning religion, they do not lecture on the stupidity of religion, they do not make snide comments about those of faith. And they are free to do so, they choose not to. Why do you think that is?

There are things said about people who believe and things said about religion in this thread and similar ones. And none of them apply to me. And since I am not special in any way, I can only conclude that these statements are simple, demeaning stereotypes. I am a person of faith. I was raised Jewish. I do not think that the bible is the literal word of god, and was never taught that it was. I don't think god is magic, nor was I ever told that. I believe in science, much to my own detriment at times. And I can prove biblically that even if every single word of the bible is true, that still doesn't mean that evolution is wrong, or didn't happen. Religion doesn't turn your brain into mush. People do. And people do it all the time.There are any number of rational faithful people out there. They far outnumber the deniers. But I'm beginning to think that the reason athiests don't see that is the same reason those deniers don't see science as an option. Atheists have a belief system too, and it's beginning to look like actual education on those who have faith threatens atheist beliefs. Which would make you guys no better than some moronic Christian who thinks evolution is a lie because it challenges HIS belief system.

As for the Taliban, never make the mistake of confusing a power play with religious zealotry. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but in this case they are. Had they decided to execute her for a violation of Sharia law, they never would have shot her. Stone her, hang her, behead her, yes. And they do that, make no mistake. That she was shot tells everyone that her execution was not a religious mandate, but a political one. She threatened their power, not their religion. I think the Taliban are religious, I don't think they are remotely the zealots we think they are. An extreme version of Sharia Law control a populace nicely. And if given the choice between ruling or staying out of power in a country that embraces their ideals, they would choose ruling any day of the week. Cult 101. Establish a religion close enough to what people grew up with that they instinctively obey they way they would have obeyed their old faith. The Taliban has done that. They are not stupid. They are David Koresh on a national scale. As is Al Qaeda. Cults are NEVER about faith. They are always simply a tool for power and control.

[Steven Russell]

What we have here is a rejection of religion and and an attitude of dismissive rejection of anyone with faith, and it is completely based on Christianity.

No it isn't.

Which is arrogant. There are atheists all over the world, yet it is only in the West, in Christian dominated cultures where people are considered idiots for believing in a god of some kind. Think about that. There are people in India, in Japan, in Vietnam, in Africa, who do not believe in any kind of religion, yet they do not publish books condemning religion, they do not lecture on the stupidity of religion, they do not make snide comments about those of faith. And they are free to do so, they choose not to. Why do you think that is?

What are you talking about? And how can you get away with calling people "snide"?

There are things said about people who believe and things said about religion in this thread and similar ones. And none of them apply to me. And since I am not special in any way, I can only conclude that these statements are simple, demeaning stereotypes. I am a person of faith. I was raised Jewish. I do not think that the bible is the literal word of god, and was never taught that it was. I don't think god is magic, nor was I ever told that. I believe in science, much to my own detriment at times. And I can prove biblically that even if every single word of the bible is true, that still doesn't mean that evolution is wrong, or didn't happen.

What???

Religion doesn't turn your brain into mush. People do. And people do it all the time.There are any number of rational faithful people out there. They far outnumber the deniers. But I'm beginning to think that the reason athiests don't see that is the same reason those deniers don't see science as an option. Atheists have a belief system too, and it's beginning to look like actual education on those who have faith threatens atheist beliefs. Which would make you guys no better than some moronic Christian who thinks evolution is a lie because it challenges HIS belief system.

Eh?

As for the Taliban, never make the mistake of confusing a power play with religious zealotry. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but in this case they are. Had they decided to execute her for a violation of Sharia law, they never would have shot her. Stone her, hang her, behead her, yes. And they do that, make no mistake. That she was shot tells everyone that her execution was not a religious mandate, but a political one. She threatened their power, not their religion. I think the Taliban are religious, I don't think they are remotely the zealots we think they are. An extreme version of Sharia Law control a populace nicely. And if given the choice between ruling or staying out of power in a country that embraces their ideals, they would choose ruling any day of the week. Cult 101. Establish a religion close enough to what people grew up with that they instinctively obey they way they would have obeyed their old faith. The Taliban has done that. They are not stupid. They are David Koresh on a national scale. As is Al Qaeda. Cults are NEVER about faith. They are always simply a tool for power and control.

Bollocks. God does not exist so we must formulate our own moral code. As we have done.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Errata,

What we have here is a rejection of religion and and an attitude of dismissive rejection of anyone with faith, and it is completely based on Christianity. Which is arrogant. There are atheists all over the world, yet it is only in the West, in Christian dominated cultures where people are considered idiots for believing in a god of some kind. Think about that. There are people in India, in Japan, in Vietnam, in Africa, who do not believe in any kind of religion, yet they do not publish books condemning religion, they do not lecture on the stupidity of religion, they do not make snide comments about those of faith. And they are free to do so, they choose not to. Why do you think that is?

It's because atheism is a subset of political correctness in western culture.

There are things said about people who believe and things said about religion in this thread and similar ones. And none of them apply to me.

But they apply specifically to me. Because I am exactly the religous person targeted by athiests. A white Christian. You will never hear atheists say to an African American 'you shouldn't believe in God.' Or tell hispanics they shouldn't go to mass. Because that atheist would instantly transform into a white racist.

No, atheism is very specifically targetted. I know when I said this before Errata, you almost **** little green apples, pointing out that there are atheists who hassle you for being a Jew. I've never experienced that, and quite frankly, that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about white people who are against other white people believing in Christ. Because that's what atheism, the vast, large majority of it, as expounded today, is.

And talking about what the Taliban does in this argument is patently bizarre. Because that is not what books and articles and arguments for atheism are about at all. And I think everybody and their brother knows that what I am saying is true, but if people want to continue to discuss this little niche, or that little niche, or to change the subject however they want, fine. Have at it.

You will never hear atheists say to an African American 'you shouldn't believe in God.' Or tell hispanics they shouldn't go to mass

This have never, and I repeat never happened in the history of American atheism, and it won't ever happen, and it won't happen on this thread.

Case Closed

Roy

[Robert]

"Bollocks. God does not exist so we must formulate our own moral code. As we have done."

You think if God did exist, you wouldn't have to bother?

I too believe in science - not scientists, mind - but science, yes.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Errata
My post certainly was not about Christianity solely but about all religion - or more specifically all organised religion. Why do you typify rejection of faith systems as dismissive and arrogant? Certainly some people who have rejected religion do so from a basis of well informed and thoughtful conviction. I do not pretend to know in detail the state of atheist or secular publications in the places you mention and so am in no position to comment meaningfully on your assertion that it is only in the West that those of faith are derided. I simply have the information to support or counter what you have said.
Your choice of adjectives for those who criticise or comment on religion is interesting: dismissive, arrogant, demeaning. Your own balanced view obviously suits you and is entirely up to you. My post is not attempting to undermine anyone's faith - what they believe is entirely up to them and is no one else's business. if you read my post you will see that I am making two main points:-
1) I personally cannot understand how anyone can follow a religion but that is entirely up to them
2) If religion only affected those who choose to follow it I would have no problem but that is not in the nature of some religions. Some persons of faith feel it incumbent upon them to be proselytising and spread their faith as, of course, it is THE answer. What I resent is those of faith - ANY faith - trying to impose their beliefs upon me or use their choices and their tastes (and supposed offence thereto) to restrict my choices and enforce their sensibilities on those who do not share them.
I am certainly not aware of atheism as an organised belief system nor do I look on any faith system as a threat to my own beliefs. But I personally think a firmer line needs to be drawn - for instance, personally I would never allow creationism or intelligent design to be taught in schools as though it had equal scientific weight and intellectual rigour as natural selection. Creationism and the "young earth" theory are palpable and provable nonsense and all of the so called "evidence" proffered in support of it is based on a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method and how it works.
I simply cannot agree with your comments about the Taliban and cults generally. What they want is power, religion is their means of getting it and keeping it. There are zealots in all religion - and this is not confined to the Middle Ages and the Inquisition. From Jim Jones and David Koresh to Anjem Choudary and fanatical Hindu groups. It used to be said that the one religion that did not breed extremists and fanatics was Buddhism but recent events in Burma show that to be a hollow claim. The recent appalling attack on the young Pakistani girl was attributed to a specifically religious reason. The Taliban who claimed responsibility said she had been "punished" for "promoting secularism."
What galls me in this particular arena is that any extremist or fanatic action is NEVER anything to do with the faith in whose name it has been perpetrated. Whenever there is an Islamist atrocity, in short order community and religious leaders will assure us that those who carried it out were not "real" Muslims and constitute only a minsicule minority of the faith. But those who carry out these acts would undeniably consider themselves not only "real" Muslims but defenders and promoters of their faith. As to numbers, if we add up all the ones who are not "real" Muslims - the members of Al Qaeda, Al Shobab, Boko Haram, Islam4Uk (technically illegal but still much in evidence), Hamas, the Taliban, etc etc etc - I think the number would be substantial and not a tiny minority. Moderate Muslims make up a majority of the faith, obviously, but to pretend that extremist actions have nothing whatever to do with the faith is both disingenuous and unhelpful.

[DVV]

Roy, you're a man.
Les autres : continuez à faire comme si LE phénomène religieux signifiait que TOUTES les religions se valent et disent la même chose.
C'est aussi stupide qu'affirmer que tous les athéistes ont la même philosophie.
Crétins.

[Errata]

Let us for instance take the claim that religious people want intelligent design or creationism taught in schools. Or if not all religious people, at least the very religious people.

There are exactly two kinds of people this statement applies to. Fundamentalist Christians, and Fundamentalist Muslims. There is no Hindu on the face of this planet, no matter how devout, that wants intelligent design taught. There could be a couple of Jews, but it's not an article of faith. Even Moderate Christians and Moderate Muslims don't want it taught. And in the US and the UK, we aren't hearing a whole lot from local fundamentalist Muslims. So it's Christians. Fundamentalist Christians. Not all of us, not by a long shot.

Proselytizing is also not a "religious" issue. Jews don't do it. Hindus don't do it. Muslims don't do it. Shinto don't do it. Christians do it. And the Ba'hai.

As for god somehow setting up a moral code, I am not conversant with every religious text out there, and some commentary akin to the Midrash can make a big difference. In the whole of Judaism, we are not told what to think or what to feel, except in one specific instance. We cannot covet our neighbors stuff. Coveting is both emotional and actionable, so that we can't do. Otherwise, we are just told how to behave. Not dissimilar to secular law. It doesn't say I can't want to kill a man, or even plan on killing a man, it says I can't kill him. Morals are emotional. Right and wrong are feelings, and even with an exceptionally complex legal code, we still have to deal with that one on our own. If you know of a religion that does tell people what to feel, that's great, but it's not mine.

As for Atheists sharing a belief system, you do. You all believe that there is no god. Which I totally get. But characterizing people who do believe as fatuous or dumb seems a common stereotype. And I have to wonder that if rational, reasoned theists threaten the belief that there is no god. I have met many atheists who call themselves atheist because they reject the god they were brought up with. Which to me is not dissimilar to giving up ice cream because you hated the first flavor you had. Which is perfectly fine, but then don't give me crap for liking ice cream. And some people seem to think that you can't have science and god, so since science makes more sense, suddenly god can't exist. Which I don't really understand, but whatever works. If I can have god and science, and I can, and atheists can't understand how, then there is no reason they can't have science and god if they wanted, and suddenly it isn't about how "superstitious" I am, but about the total lack of imagination the atheist has. Some atheists are just as limited as any atheist has accused a religious person of being. Many aren't, but some are. Religious people have constant checks as to how successfully they integrate their belief system in with the workings of the world. I don't think atheists do. Which means that religious people are stronger in their "faith" than a good many atheists, because religious people have their faith constantly attacked by the nature of existence, and atheists only have it confirmed. Which scientifically is like setting up an experiment so that you know you will get the answer you want every time.

As for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There are absolutely extremist and fanatic Muslims, as there are of any faith. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are I suppose "real" Muslims. I'm a "real" Jew and I eat pork. The definition of a cult has never been about belief, or the strength of belief. And this is actually something I have quite a bit of experience with. It is about the use of religion for consolidation of power and personal gain, and the furtherance of criminal enterprise. That's how the US defines it. I'm sure Warren Jeffs believes in his FLDS teaching. That he used those teachings to become extremely powerful in the lives of his flock and then to rape teenage girls makes it a cult. I'm sure the Taliban consider themselves good Muslims. What I think you do not understand is that because they consider themselves good Muslims, you know that Malala did not violate Sharia Law. She violated Taliban law. Had they considered her to be in violation of Sharia law, they would have stoned her to death. Or hanged her, or beheaded her, depending on the crime. That's what they do. Mostly they behead people. They shot her. Fundamentalist Muslims cannot shoot someone to execute them under Sharia Law. They have to execute the criminal in the manner described in the Koran. And the Taliban does. So since the Taliban has no problems beheading people for violation of Sharia Law, and had access to her, could have taken her and executed her in the accepted manner, the fact they did not do so means that this was political not religious. She was not judged under Sharia, she was judged by men. This doesn't mean that religion was involved, but it means she was not judged under religious law. This was a bunch of men afraid of the popularity of a little girl, not a bunch of men following the law of their faith.

It is akin to a Prison warden drowning a prisoner in a toilet. You know the man was not executed by the US legal system, because drowning someone in a toilet is prohibited. Therefor, the warden was drowning the guy for personal reasons.

I have noticed a trend of Atheists talking about religions as though they were the same. Talking about faith as though all people had it in the same way. Talking about a belief in god as though it was the same in every religion. It's not. The same way not all brown people are Mexicans, which is another thing that irritates me. If you have a problem with the behavior of Christians, say Christians. If you have a problem with the beliefs of Jews, say Jews. If you find Muslims in violation of some sort of universal social or moral code, say Muslims. We are not the same. We do not believe the same things. Even the term "Judeo-Christian" drives me nuts, because there is such a massive fundamental difference in everything to two believe, that we can't be hyphenated. It's the same as saying "Judeo-Hindu beliefs". I'm quite fond of Hinduism, but we aren't the same. The belief system I was raised in says that yes, there is a god, but he's not going to do anything other than not strike you dead. His command is that we care for people before we care for religion. I'm not saying we're always great at it, but that's what he says. Christianity has different priorities. First god, then Jesus, then either the church, or people. The San of the Kalihari have no relationship with their deities, unless they come across a praying mantis, and then they send the mantis as a messenger with their good wishes, and perhaps a request or two. Their god is an invisible neighbor. We aren't the same. We don't prioritize the same way, we don't have the same relationship with our respective deities, and we are NOT responsible for the misbehavior of other faiths.

Remember that some people can be very hurt by blanket assumptions about religion. Others can get pissed. If you wouldn't say something like "Black people can't speak proper English" when you mean that you just met one black kid who didn't speak proper English, please don't do the same for religion. We are as individual as races, and not recognizing that is no less prejudiced than thinking that all black people look alike.

[ChainzCooper]

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?

Are you honestly asking me if I believe God gives people cancer? Like pointing out who does and who doesn't get it? That is an obvious no as most people would think. I do believe in karma and in what goes around comes around. That is if you're completely negative or bad to other people then that negativity is going to eventually come back around to you. Is that always what happens though? No, like with your Christian friends.But some people get what they deserve
Jordan

[Robert]

"His command is that we care for people before we care for religion."

What about the story of Abraham and Isaac?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Does God believe in you?

God will believe in you if you believe in him.

So believe in God with all your heart and, whilst you're at it, please give generously.

We are told that Jesus was a poor and simple man, yet somehow the various religious corporations in the world have contrived to become staggeringly rich and powerful.

Belief is control.

Regards,

Simon

[Errata]

"His command is that we care for people before we care for religion."

What about the story of Abraham and Isaac?

He did send an angel to stop Abraham, and admit it was a test. Nobody said god isn't a dick

What I was taught was that this command represents a lot of things. It wasn't saying that you need to do whatever god tells you to do, though Abraham did. It's saying that obedience to god creates tough choices. Choices that in the end, god doesn't ask you make. It's also about fallibility in interpreting gods will. Even if god comes out and says to your face that you need to do something that is wrong, it doesn't mean you are necessarily supposed to do it. Abraham's obedience was good. But he paid a price for it. We are told that Isaac became afraid of his father, and hesitant to learn about his father's god, and was not prepared to take over the priesthood when Abraham died.

The story of Abraham that we look to as how to be is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He argues with god for the lives of the people in those cities. He tells god straight out that destroying everybody for the sins of some was wrong. It turns out not to have a difference in the end. But god was not displeased with Abraham and is in fact persuaded by him to spare the cities if a certain number of righteous men can be found. It's kind of a big deal when god says to a human "okay. you're right. we'll do it your way". He doesn't always say that (the entire noah episode was a dick move), but sometimes he does. It is our duty to go so far as to tell god to go to hell when lives are at stake.

What set early Judaism apart from the previous religions, and many afterward, is that it was the first religion to encode into it's laws how to treat other human beings. Previous to that, religion was sacrifices to gods to do something for you, or sacrifices to gods to keep them out of your life. The Greek Pantheon is the greatest example of a protection racket man has ever seen. What you gave to the god was what you got from them. But Judaism said that yeah, you had to sacrifice an unblemished bullock or whatever, but that alone wasn't going to cut it. If you beat your slaves, you are in trouble. If you steal from others, you are in trouble. If you work in trade and do not give your wife an orgasm five nights a week (an obscure one, but a favorite), you are in trouble. All written down in 400 bc so there was no excuse to not know these rules.

Our greatest Rabbi Hillel would probably be of interest to anyone who is interested in what we as a religion value. And Christians since Hillel's work is the basis of the teaching of Jesus. His most famous story is about a man who taunted him and said "Teach me the Torah while standing on one foot" And Hillel replied "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary; go study."

[Limehouse]

Are you honestly asking me if I believe God gives people cancer? Like pointing out who does and who doesn't get it? That is an obvious no as most people would think. I do believe in karma and in what goes around comes around. That is if you're completely negative or bad to other people then that negativity is going to eventually come back around to you. Is that always what happens though? No, like with your Christian friends.But some people get what they deserve
Jordan

Hi Jordan,

I'm struggling to follow your logic because your previous post (the fill in the blanks post) did seem to suggest that because Hitchens wrote a book about why he is an atheist, he therefore succumbed to cancer. Now, it seems, it is karma that he succumbed - 'some people get what they deserve' - as you put it. This seems to be a very odd statement from someone who has argued so passionately for freedom of speech and democracy in other threads.

Hitchens didn't JUST write about being an atheism. He also wrote a very good book called 'Why Orwell Matters' and several other very readable books. I do not think he was 'always completely negative or bad to others' and i think his cancer was probably the result of being a smoker rather than a bad person.

Regards

Julie

[Limehouse]

Not going to go in for multiple quotes, but just wanted to say - very good posts from Errata, Roy and Chris Scott. Obviously, I do not agree with all of you, but I like the quality of your debates.

I would like to add, if it is helpful in any way, that I am a Christian believer, but I do not have any problem at all with atheism, homosexuality, people of other faiths or, indeed, science. I even love the film 'The Life of Brian'!!

My faith is personal, it's about my relationship with God and how he works for me in my life. I share my faith with those who ask me about it, and with others of faith (often, I share with Muslims and Jews as I belong to a multi-faith discussion group at my place of work).

I don't concern myself with whether it's possible for the earth to have been created in seven days or whether the arc was big enough for two of every animal. I concern myself with prayer and with campaigning for a fairer world (I am also a socialist) and to a greater extent - I leave other people to live their lives in their own way (as long as it does not cause direct harm or offence to others).

Regards

Julie

[Chris Scott]

Hi Errata
Many thanks for your response but I have to pick you upon a few issues :-)
I really don't care where the pressure comes from to teach Creationism in schools - I just think it a retrograde and unscientific step, akin to proposing that we teach pre Copernican cosmology in schools.
If you honestly believe that Muslims do not proselytise then your experience is very different from mine - or maybe the situation in the UK is different. Attempts to attract "non believers" to the faith are espoused openly and in a matter of fact way. In the UK there is a mainstream terrestrial TV channel - The islam Channel - which often has features about social and political issues. Commentators and presenters will often suggest ways in which Islam can be presented more sympathetically, not only to correct what the programmers perceive as misconceptions, but ultimately to attract more people to become Muslims. On a number of occasions when I have expressed reservations about Islam a whole programme of suggestions are rolled out. First, I am told, I am really not in a position to criticise Islam because I do not understand it. I was offered classes in Koranic studies and weekend "familiarisation" courses to get to know Islam which I politely declined. When I explained that I have read the Koran at some length we reach the next predictable step which is that I can only really appreciate the Koran if I read it in the original Arabic. I reject this logic completely, whereby only those within a movement or faith are allowed to make comments on it or raise concerns about it.
To be fair, I have been told similar things by some Christian denominations - mainly Jehovah's Witness and Mormons - but as I tell them I feel qualified to comment as I have a post graduate diploma in Theology, I have written a book called "The Claims of the Gospels" and am a long standing member of the BAS (the Bibilical Archaeological Society).

Your comment about atheists sharing a belief system because they all believe there is no God is as simplistic and ultimately meaningless as saying that all persons of faith share a belief system because they all believe in a God. People of faith are not fatuous or dumb by definition nor would I support any argument that held that. My argument is with those of faith who are uncritical, unthinking and simply accept a statement because they are told it is revealed truth and therefore it cannot be questioned. I also have a strong issue with faith schools and the way religion is "taught." I emphasise "taught" because it is actually in many instances inculcated into young children as unquestionable truth - that is not teaching. When I see the swaying figures of young boys learning the Koran or young Jewish boys reciting the Torah like automata my blood runs cold. I only quote those two faiths as the ones with which I am most familiar but in the not too distant past similar scenes would have been seen in a Catholic school as children learned required texts, and likewise the chanting of young monks in a Buddhist monastery or Hindu temple.
The actual manner of the attack on the young girl is of minor importance in that the main objective was to silence her. You are probably right in that if the Taliban had been able to lay hands on her and bodily take her they may well have used "approved" and Koranic methods of execution but the fact the attack took place on a crowded school bus limited their options. And the fact that the Taliban use gun and grenade to eliminate those they see as enemies of their faith or collaborators shows they are not that fussed about the methods used.
You say it is a mistake to talk about all faiths in the same way - I totally agree and that is what I was saying earlier. Just as it is a mistake to suggest that all objections to faith are the same or can be dismissed as some sort of heterogeneous atheist plot. But I cannot agree with the rest of your contention. You say if I have a problem with Islam, or Christianity or Sikhism or Buddhism etc etc then all those should be dealt with separately. But if one has problems with the very idea of theism then obviously comments will be addressed across the boundaries of faiths. That is not to ignore the fact that different faiths have their own unique histories, developments and moral codes, but if a faith is posited on the basis of a supreme being whose existence is not amenable to logical proof or even testing, then it would fall within my definition of a theist system. To take an extreme example my objections and observations about mainstream faiths such as Hinduism and Islam would be just as applicable to belief systems such as Satanism or Wicca, namely that they are based on the acceptance of the existence of a supranatural being whose pronouncements are conveyed to man by revelation and cannot be questioned.