Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

A first-class post.

I whole-heartedly concur.

Regards,

Simon

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[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?