Christopher Hitchens Dies At 62

An anonymous reader sends this quote from the NY Times: "Christopher Hitchens, a slashing polemicist in the tradition of Thomas Paine and George Orwell who trained his sights on targets as various as Henry Kissinger, the British monarchy and Mother Teresa, wrote a best-seller attacking religious belief, and dismayed his former comrades on the left by enthusiastically supporting the American-led war in Iraq, died Thursday at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He was 62. He took pains to emphasize that he had not revised his position on atheism, articulated in his best-selling 2007 book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, although he did express amused appreciation at the hope, among some concerned Christians, that he might undergo a late-life conversion. Mr. Hitchens's latest collection of writings, Arguably: Essays, published this year, has been a best-seller and ranked among the top 10 books of 2011 by The New York Times Book Review."

Re:As he would have wanted...

[Nick Fel]

Well he had kids, so not exactly...

Re:Not all religions are bad

[jeffasselin]

Any religion that promotes supernaturalism or offers mythology as a substitute for reality is bad.

That takes almost every religion out of the equation. About the only thing left is a few schools of Zen Buddhism, and most people call that a philosophy, not a religion.

Re:Not all religions are bad - yes they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Any religion can, and will, be perverted by its followers so they can do whatever they wanted in the first place.

If you think that Buddhism has never been misused to do horrible things, you haven't studied much history, or even paid much attention to world news.

smoking and atheism

[mapkinase]

I found it surprising that he was so adamant about his smoking and drinking (even boasting it), being an atheist. One would expect an atheist taking more serious approach to his health.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the "god hates fags" part.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[cybrthng]

I come to slashdot hoping to read some great comments about Hitchens and the first post i see moded up is someone being an religious apologist? Hitchens was much more than his atheism. Much much more. What a disgrace mods.. seriously.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[dskoll]

Nonsense. All religions are bad. Even Buddhism has its extremists (Google for examples.)

The problem is that any philosophy that claims to have a God-given truth inevitably turns evil because you can't question God-given truth. When you can't question beliefs, you can't hold believers accountable and corruption sets in.

Hitchens himself criticized Buddhism in "God is not Great". You should read that book.

Re:And now he finds out ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely he only finds out if he was wrong.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[LordGr8one]

You know, I could put in some other belief systems in place of Christianity in your first paragraph and it still hold true. Lots of belief systems...or just greed. I'm inclined to believe that it's people that cause the evil that you're talking about, and that belief systems such as Christianity are merely tools in the hands of men who would do those things.

Re:smoking and atheism

[RogueyWon]

I think you've confused "atheism" with "puritanism". Easy mistake to make, I'm sure.

Re:Not all religions are bad - yes they are

[Jason Levine]

To quote Farscape, specifically Noranti answering the question "Do religions hate each other where you come from?":

"Oh, good heavens no. Religions are grand lofty ideals. Religious followers, now that's another story."

Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.

Mod this up

[John3]

You are so right...atheism was such a small part of what he wrote and spoke about. It certainly was the topic that sold tickets and books, but he commented and wrote about nearly every topic related to culture and civilization. Love him or hate him, he was always interesting and thought-provoking.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[XxtraLarGe]

The problem is that any philosophy that claims to have a God-given truth inevitably turns evil.

Evil? What do you mean by that?

Re:smoking and atheism

[cupantae]

I don't really understand your comment. Not believing in an afterlife, one should try to enjoy real life. His attitude (whether well-founded or not) was that he did that. I think you've been misguided on the way atheists think.

Not to mention the implication that those who believe in the afterlife would think, "I can shorten my life as much as I want".

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Anonymous Coward]

If only most Christians would actually follow that. Last time I checked bombing abortion clinics, beating up gays, starting holy wars, etc didn't fit the bill of "be nice to people".

Big geek was he?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been a fan of Hitch's writings on filesystems, UX, kernel internals, GNOME vs. KDE etc. Oh no, he never wrote anything on those subjects did he? So why on earth is he being given an article on /. ? Oh, because he's a leading atheist.

When Pratchett and Pullman die, feel free; they at least are part of geek culture.

Soulskill, you are advancing your political and world views at the expense of slashdot's quality.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[cupantae]

Person 1: There are bad aspects to X.
Person 2: No! Here is a good aspect to X!

Re:Not all religions are bad

[thisnamestoolong]

The whole "be nice to people" is a small part of Christianity. Furthermore, it is not in any way necessary to have Christianity (or any religion at all) to want to "be nice to people". While Christianity might implore you to be nice, it also carries with it severe baggage; homophobia, misogyny, intolerance, and fear. Seriously; if you told your child that you were going to throw her in the furnace for being bad, it would be child abuse; tell your child that God will throw her in a furnace for all eternity and all of a sudden it's OK. Christianity is a festering sore on our moral development, the sooner we can be rid of it, the better. I will close by passing on Hitch's legacy in the form of a question that he was fond of asking believers: Name one good, moral action that could not have been conceived of by a person of no faith. Tough question, right? Ok, here's an easier one: Name me one wicked action that was committed in the name of religion. Chew on that one for a little bit, and the cognitive dissonance might wake you up from your intellectual coma.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Mushukyou]

It's the delusion of religion that motivates what would otherwise be a good person to do bad things... so it's not just "the people", unless you want to target their ignorance/gullibility. I suppose if you did target and cure those two things, we wouldn't need to have to concentrate on religion. However, since those things exist and it's difficult to educate in that regard, we must see religion as an evil force that takes advantages of those states.

Bummer.

[MrVagoo]

Christopher Hitchens, you were a gentleman and a scholar. You will be missed dearly.

Thank you, sir...

[Braintrust]

... for speaking the truth as you saw it, for forever questioning those truths yourself, and for overcoming your fear to speak them right to the end.

You were a rare man. Thank you.

Why?

[John3]

I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling, but I'll assume serious. Are you implying that a theist who believes in an afterlife would be more cavalier with their physical health since they consider life on Earth as merely a speed bump on the trip to eternal salvation? I know that holds true for many evangelicals with regard to our natural resources and the health of the planet (("F**k the earth, god gave it to us to rape and pillage so don't complain to me about my Hummer!"), but most religious people I know are generally not smokers and drinkers.

Why would an atheist avoid physical (guilty) pleasures like drinking or smoking? Would a longer, more boring life be preferable to a shorter, exciting, experience-filled existence? I would say the more surprising thing about the fact that he drank and smoked is that he is knowledgeable about the scientific body of evidence related to the detrimental health effects. He made an informed decision to spend what he knew was a finite existence doing things that gave him pleasure rather than squandering that time twiddling his thumbs.

Re:Big geek was he?

[AdmV0rl0n]

Slashdot has always taken at least a partial interest in the wider world, with many articles on the technological or social angles of events. Hitchens often spoke about such events, and you might regard the linking as abstract or tenuous, but others will not. Technology is often cited as being part of a wider movement that unleashes forces for good, and unbinds people from tryannical and oppressed lives. Hitchens nominally shared *and* very publicly worked for the same thing.

Its only right such a man is noted. The fact it made slashdot is all the better.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[bmo]

Basically all the Republicans except for Ron Paul last night in the debate were frothing at the mouth and chomping at the bit to bomb some Muslims.

Because over 1 billion people are our enemy and we are going to go to Holy War with them because the Dominionsts like Bachmann, Perry, et alia, believe it's necessary.

Or some such nonsense.

Goddamn, these people are fucking dangerous.

--
BMO "I believe in peace, bitch" - Tori Amos

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Empiric]

Name one good, moral action that could not have been conceived of by a person of no faith.

The question is meaningless until you have a definition of "good" and "moral". I'll believe you have the very first, absolutely initial start to a sort-of beginning to that, willing to call it a "start" if we stipulate we're going to hugely overestimate the content offered in favor of your argument... when you have two atheists declare a standard, both agree to it, and show a rationale that it isn't a purely subjective personal opinion with zero weight behind it.

We've had 3000 years for a consensus on these questions to emerge from secular philosophy. Not even close.

Hitchens criticism of buddhism

[hellfire]

Hitchen's criticisms of all religions primarily boils down to their impacts as a whole to large portions of society, and how the larger defined body of Buddhism in the world is just as bad as Christianity. There are so called Buddhist sects are just as intolerant and violent as Christian ones, and ask their followers to cast off thought and reason and simply listen to their teachings. It's this abandoning of reason that's the problem with religion, and while one might define that for an individual person religion was good... for example, Jesus was a good guy who did good things and was better for his beliefs... but for society as a whole, religion has had negative impacts and is used for evil and hypocritical purposes. The Abrahamic religions do this far more efficiently than Hinduism and Buddhism but the latter are not, as a whole, innocent religions.

And that's not to mention the supernatural. Emphasizing the supernatural over reason is immediately a problem because it leads to be people not questioning the supernatural and simply accepting it.

I could find you a sect of Christianity that is equivalent to Theravada Buddhism, but there is a fine line between philosophy and religion. There's also a fine line between humanism and a well thought out philosophy that emphasizes reason. Where you want to draw the line is another debate entirely, but using Theravada Buddhism as a way to counter Hitchen's argument about religion is equivalent to using an anecdote to counteract statistical evidence. Invariable, as religions grow and spread they are twisted and used for evil and force people to abandon reason. Some smaller religions and philosophies emphasize reason, but the moment you put reason below anything else, you open up people to the principle that at some point, they are allowed to stop thinking for themselves.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[LordGr8one]

Non-religious men have done terrible thing in the past, too. To say that religion is the sole force that turns good men bad ignores history. I'm not sure if that's your intended implication, but your post can certainly be read that way. You also completely ignore the good things that religion has done for it believers as well as the good things that its believers have done for the world. Contributions by religious men and women to the fields of science, art, music, medicine, philosophy are incalculable. the religious do not have a corner on the market of good deeds, for true, but pretending they're not even there is dishonest. This is not to exalt the religious and tarnish unbelievers: rather, it's meant to help one understand that there are good and bad on both sides of that divide. The implication there is that good and bad is a function of men, not necessarily of their beliefs.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[thisnamestoolong]

I know you are a troll, but I see this idiotic point made often enough, and I feel that there are enough non-trolls on /. who hold similar views that I would like to address it. While I am sure there exist atheists who want to attack religious freedom, 99.999% of what religious nut-jobs call attacks on religious freedoms are really just a defense of secularism, which is the source of ALL religious freedom.

It is NOT infringing on your religious freedom to abolish a National Day of Prayer, it is simply re-establishing a secular government, which is the only type of government that can truly defend religious freedom. The same goes for getting organized prayer out of school or trying to get "Under God" out of the pledge.

The point it, nobody has the "freedom" to subject others to their point of view. You would not like it if we did it to you, and thankfully, we are not. We are not trying to get the schools to teach that there is no God. We aren't trying to get "Under God" replaced with "Under No God". We simply want the establishment to stop infringing on OUR religious freedom, or more specifically, our freedom to choose not to have a religion.

Is that really so much to ask? I mean, sure, I know that there will be a whole lot more atheists if we take religion out of the public sphere a bit, but what does that say about your cause? People stop believing it if it's not shoved down their throats 24/7? This is a tired, destructive meme that needs to be taken out back, shot, burned, and turned into fertilizer.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[MightyMartian]

I think someone needs to re-read Leviticus. Yahweh most certainly hates homosexuals.

The passing of a brilliant man

[Attila Dimedici]

This was the passing of a brilliant man, but why is it an article on slashdot? I am unaware of anything Christopher Hitchens wrote that was directly related to any of the subjects that slashdot usually covers.

More than just a secular humanist

[Voline]

Sure Hitchens made a name for himself for his efforts against religion. But those pale in comparison to his greater achievement: helping to bring the world the Iraq war.

I will always remember the steadfastly careerist way Hitchens reached across the political divide to join hands with the neocons in the Bush administration to boldly hype up false intelligence to make the war in Iraq a reality. Thanks to Hitchens the Iraqi people no longer live in fear of Saddam Hussein's regime. Now they live in fear of torture and death at the hands of Iraqi government and/or various politico-religious militias. Always better when a government monopoly is replaced by a competitive market, eh?

The war also removed the burden of a functioning electrical grid or sanitation systems – facilities that would be superfluous for the 6% of the population, or 2 million [mcclatchydc.com] Iraqis, who have been internally displaced by the war.

None of this would have been possible without the efforts of pro-war propagandists like Christopher Hitchens. I hope for his sake, that he's right and there is no god.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[thisnamestoolong]

Are you fucking kidding me? You don't think that we have any innate sense of right and wrong? You don't think that we have any sense of solidarity with one another? Are you really willing to debase yourself that thoroughly? The fact that we don't have perfect, clean cut, black and white answers to every moral question is no proof against this; that is simply NOT how reality works! You have provided a perfect example of the destructive effect that religion has on our collective consciousness; this sort of binary, black and white, good and evil thinking is what causes the religious to make such bad decisions that are antithetical to reality. In real life, the vast majority of moral decisions are gray and murky, mired in context and implications. I think we can, however, all agree that when religion is given the only say, that the results are uniformly horrifying.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[dskoll]

What do you mean, "you can't question God-given truth", specifically?

I mean this, specifically: Extremists who believe they have God-given truth will take all kinds of nasty actions up to and including genocide to silence those who question them or disagree with them. I also mean this: Any religion which claims to have some sort of God-given truth will inevitably spawn extemists. That's simply a fact of human nature.

So although you might argue that religion itself is not the problem (extremists are), I disagree. Religion itself is like a loaded handgun left lying around. It's a danger in and of itself because it will inevitably be used for evil.

Re:Pascal's Wager

[JasterBobaMereel]

He specifically said he would have no last minute conversion, so no he did not wager ... ..the religious nuts will claim he did anyway ...

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Empiric]

You don't think that we have any innate sense of right and wrong?

An "innate sense" is functionally worthless. For any given moral question, person A can claim his "innate sense" is the direct opposite of whatever person B claims is his "innate sense". Let's see, if this is true, what would we expect to see as a consequence, in verifiable reality... probably no real effective moral system emerging over any given period of time, and a history of extreme disagreement on most particular points and resulting interpersonal conflict and warfare throughout the population, and, hmm... probably a huge accretion of contradictory and arbitrary laws within secular legal systems.

Interesting. Precisely what we've got, and always have had. Hm.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[SirGarlon]

Hmmm, are you trying to say that if you'd been educated outside of religion, you, personally, would have been unethical ? I don't see how to read your answer otherwise.

No, I'm saying that I been both an atheist and a Christian and I think the Christian me is a more generous and courageous person. Not that the atheist me was especially bad.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[MrHanky]

He isn't a troll, he's sarcastic. Most Christians aren't into "bombing abortion clinics, beating up gays, starting holy wars, etc" just like most atheists aren't into attacking religious feelings. Yet for some reason, this sane point is currently modded up then down to 0 again, and the guy who in actual fact states that most Christians are "bombing abortion clinics, beating up gays, starting holy wars, etc" is +2.

So yeah, there are a few idiot atheists out there. Luckily, they're confined to moderating Slashdot and only leave their basements to pay the pizza delivery boy.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[alphred]

I second that. Unfortunately, the "religious nut-jobs", although a minority, are quite loud and are the voices that others hear the most. This leads to the confusion between what the nutters are saying and what Christianity is really about. Most of the objections I see raised by atheists are about the way Christians behave (or a perception of how they should behave), and don't often delve into the real core beliefs. That's unfortunate because some very interesting conversations do not occur because of the superficiality of the arguments (from both sides).

Re:As he would have wanted...

[Myopic]

It's not your metaphysics, it's that you're an asshole. The difference should be clear.

Re:The passing of a brilliant man

[shadowrat]

Themes central to so many slashdot discussions such as science, religion, and flying spaghetti monsters are all within the realm of Hitchens.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Hoi Polloi]

We lost the Soviet Union as our boogy-man so we need a new enemy to distract ourselves. The alternative is having to turn inward and we might not like what we see.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[B1oodAnge1]

The distinction between the sinner (who God loves) and the sin (that is unacceptable to God) is made quite clear in the New Testament. The Bible does not say that God hates homosexuals. The Bible states that homosexual behavior is sin, along with sex before marriage, failure to respect your parents, and witchcraft, among other things. God hates sin because it separates him from his creation, which he loves.

It should be pointed out that CHRISTian means a follower of Christ, not an adherent to the old Jewish law.

I'm agnostic, but I grew up Evangelical Christian and I went through two years of bible college classes while in high school.
I'm pretty familiar with the Bible and its teachings, and I can categorically say that anyone who claims that God hates any particular category of sinner is not following the teachings of Christ, and therefore is not a Christian.

That said, bastardized christianity HAS been the rationalization for a horrifying litany of evil.
I would argue that this is more because of its ready availability as an excuse that everyone would accept than its inherent aptitude.
Any system of belief can and will be perverted by those seeking personal power.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Empiric]

I think we can, however, all agree that when religion is given the only say, that the results are uniformly horrifying.

Did you want a particular response to this direct and obvious lie, by the way?

Show me something comparable to Stalin and Mao, at a combined death toll of between 50 million and 100 million of their own citizens, atheist and theist alike. You have essentially two centuries to draw data points from (outside of the bloodbath of pre-religion evolution)--by comparison to religions' "liability" across all recorded history, your results aren't even close.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[alexo]

This question is asking if religious persons are morally superior to non-religious persons. I have often heard that claim but I don't believe it is true

There is a strong argument to the opposite -- a person that performs moral acts out of fear of personal punishment (hell) or expecting a personal reward (heaven) is morally inferior.

Re:Never heard of him

[Pope]

Until he got cancer. Sorry anyone gets cancer, but I wonder if he "found god" before he passed away. For his sake, I hope he made peace with god.

Why would he "make peace" with something he didn't believe in? On top of that, which god do you mean?

Re:Not all religions are bad

[thisnamestoolong]

Yes. This is human nature. This is why when religion can have its go we are all subject to the innate moral sense of the clerics. This is why in Afghanistan girls have acid thrown in their faces for trying to get an education, and why witches were burned in the Middle Ages. This is why we all need to try to work together and try to balance all of our moral senses against one another, and find the best possible middle ground. It adds nothing to the situation to make a man-made work of fiction the ultimate moral arbiter for all of these matters. Nothing will change the fact that we are primates; we are not capable of perfectly logical or rational thought. We can, however, move forward by recognizing this and moving forward, rather than imposing a silly, barbaric code of conduct that was written by bronze-age goatherders.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Nursie]

Pascals wager has a fallacy so huge I'm surprised you haven't tripped and fallen into it.

He misses the obvious -

What if the real god is Allah, Shiva, Zeus or Odin?
What if the real god is judging us on how rationally we behave in a godless, toy universe he created?
What if the real god hates worship and wants to be left alone?
What if...?
What if...?

Pascal presents the options that Christianity is right, or atheism is right. He misses an infinity of other possibilities, all as likely as christianity (i.e. unevidenced).

On top of which he also discards any idea that living under delusion in a godless universe may have downsides.

Pascal's wager is, to use the modern vernacular, a crock of shit.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Hatta]

This leads to the confusion between what the nutters are saying and what Christianity is really about.

So tell me, is the following represent what the "nutters" say or is it what Christianity is really about?

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!

Re:Not all religions are bad

[Hatta]

Why don't they just ask God to clarify?

Re:Not all religions are bad

[dkleinsc]

They were, if you start by assuming the Bible is at least somewhat accurate.

For instance, the next generation of priests after Leviticus theoretically took place basically passed word around that God wanted the Israelites to completely slaughter the various peoples they encountered in Canaan, including the children, just because they weren't Israelites.

Paul also was bigoted against all sorts of people.

That's not to say that either group was unusual in their bigotry at the time they lived.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[vadim_t]

Why would they be included? There's no dogma in atheism.

Dogma is the main problem: If religion holds that something is the absolute truth, any attempt of questioning it inevitably clashes with religious authority, and does so in a way that rational discourse is impossible. This both greatly retards moral progress, and gives people a way to justify evil actions by clinging to scripture.

The only way that moral progress happens in religious societies is by slowly and painfully inventing ways to work around scripture while still keeping it, by for instance coming up with some convoluted explanation of why a passage formerly thought to be completely serious is actually not for real, because it's an obsolete rule made for an old brutal society, or means something entirely different if you squint just right at it. But those things never disappear entirely, and always remain in existence for people to cling to when it validates their position on some issue.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[thisnamestoolong]

And Hitler was a Catholic -- so what? Stalin and Mao are another thing entirely. While both were explicitly atheistic, they were both completely hostile to all notions of free-thought. While they both banned any other form of religion, it could be said that they in turn made themselves into gods. Free-thought is the key. While ridding ourselves of the shackles of religion is not sufficient to establishing a free thinking world, it is a necessary step.

Re:Why?

[skids]

GP is under the mis-impression that most atheists are not only "hard atheists" but regard consciousness itself as somehow (almost magically) completely confined to residing in the space/time envelope of a particular brain. Or in other words, they think atheists believe there is a complete and unending cessation of all consciousness -- eternal oblivion -- at death from the relative perspective of the consciousness that was contained in that brain, with absolutely no opportunity whatsoever for the resumption of even fragments of that consciousness emerging in other ordered systems at other times/places. GP is also under the mis-impression that a human mind that had constructed such a belief system would be completely oriented towards self preservation and the pursuit of extended lifetime, when in fact the human mind contains conflicting directives towards survival of the species due to evolutionary pressures, and despite all disciplines of rationality, has subconscious activities that are anything but rational (at best they are Bayesian.)

Or in other words the GP expects an atheist to have a belief system which is about as terrifying as an ex-communicated traditional Catholic who themselves sincerely believe that they are completely unredeemable and definitely going to hell no matter what.

In reality of course the majority of people who identify as atheists (at least that I've seen) more define themselves by not believing in some specific set of characteristics of god(s) or other entities that many religions claim exists, and beyond knowing what they definitely do not believe in, they are agnostic on the philosophical matters. So there is no special reason beyond the normal motivations for them to fear death.

(Not that I espouse any of the so-called "rationality" that many modern day atheists seem to come up with. I find some of them to be exceptionally closed-minded and blinded by methodology, but one should not assume to know so much about the minds of atheists without having actually communicated with many, as the GP does.)

Personally I find the idea that one's belief system about entirely philosophical matters is some measure of their worth both offensive and "probably crap" as well, while complaints about those who manipulate belief systems in a destructive fashion, and those who allow their belief systems to be so manipulated, are much more justified. The intellectual danger on all sides of the argument stems from a natural desire to control or at least reliably predict the behavior of others, which is almost impossible really and certainly cannot be done with a system of stereotypes and pigeonholes. One must accept people as the unpredictable sentient life forms they are.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[TheRaven64]

Except that's not really how it works, because there is not a choice of religion on the one hand and not-religion on the other hand. Instead, there is a choice of either no religion or one from a large number of other religions. Or, as another wise man once said: there are no religious people, just two kinds of atheist. Some disbelieve all religions, some disbelieve all except one.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[RazorSharp]

During the postexilic age, an impoverished, harassed Israel lived under the domination of the Persian Empire. Her identity as a monarchial political state no longer secure or adequate, she sought to recover her ancient identity as a worshiping community ruled by the Lord. Accordingly, Leviticus stresses the antiquity of the Aaronite priestly leadership and of the attendant rituals. In a time of uncertainty about Israel's election and of a tendency to assimilate to the culture of her neighbors, Leviticus placed great stress on the uniqueness of Israel's socio-economic legislation and encouraged the observance of even the smallest details of the cultic regulations. In contrast to the unrestrained social and economic abuses of the late monarchic and exilic periods, it reasserts the ancient prohibition against absolute human domination of persons and physical property. Thus, in spite of the failures of the past and the hardships of the present, Israel could once again recover her identity as "holy people" in whose midst the Lord dwelled.

It helps to understand context before quoting the Bible and saying, "God said this!" Something both atheists and Baptists fail to do. No Catholic worth his confirmation, for example, would claim that anything in the Bible is the word of God. The Bible is a collection of old religious writings organized into a single book during the Council of Trent.

You use the term "Yahweh," so if you're attacking Jews, your complaint rests solely with the Hassidic variety because most Jews interpret these old writings as more of a cultural history than as religious absolutes. They are one of, if perhaps the only, culture to have a written record that dates back almost as far as civilization itself. They value this and preserve it.

Concerning Christians, Leviticus is even more irrelevant because what made Jesus of Nazareth so important was that he advocated abandoning these old texts in favor of his reformed Golden Rule Philosophy. Christians of the non-theologically insane variety (i.e. not Baptist, 'non-denominational,' southern Methodists, etc.) study the old testament as a historical context to understand the culture that Jesus of Nazareth lived in and the religion he was raised in and reformed.

Baptists and the like, the ones who quote various parts of the Bible as the absolute word of God, have their roots in snake-oil salesmen during various 'Great Awakenings' who decided that religion was a profitable venture. They rarely understand the historical or theological context of Christianity, foregoing the study of Hebrew and Greek in favor of a fervent study of the most simplistic English translation of the Bible they can find. Basically, they're just as ignorant as Christopher Hitchens was. Meanwhile, we Catholics and Lutherans and Jews stood in the middle of this fray, perplexed by the ignorance on both sides.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[tqk]

So although you might argue that religion itself is not the problem (extremists are), I disagree. Religion itself is like a loaded handgun left lying around. It's a danger in and of itself because it will inevitably be used for evil.

i) You're foolish to disagree.
ii) Nutjobs can use anything to further their aims.
iii) A loaded handgun left lying around is just a loaded handgun left lying around. It's no more deadly than a book until its trigger is pulled, and that takes a someone to pull it.

I'm an atheist, but I don't ascribe inherent malevolence to inanimate objects (including religion), regardless of how little I appreciate them. "An idea is not responsible for those who hold it."

Re:Not all religions are bad

[NEDHead]

Bending the facts to fit your belief is never the right thing to do. It is simply the wrong answer to "If fact and faith disagree, which should change?".

Seriously? Religions are created by people to express their needs and beliefs; and to build monuments to their superiority. Facts are but a minor nuisance in the face of a robust Proof By Assertion.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[IICV]

Not only that, if you follow Pascal's wager through to its logical conclusion, it leads to horrific actions.

Consider: it is of infinite benefit to die and go to heaven. Children who die with faith are guaranteed to go to heaven. Children who do not die have a non-zero chance of growing up and becoming godless atheists, which means that they will not go to heaven - which is, relatively, of zero benefit.

This means that allowing a faithful child to grow to maturity and, potentially, lose their faith is one of the worst things you could do; it is far better to kill them right now, in order to ensure their entry into heaven.

Therefore, if you accept Pascal's wager, you ought to kill your children right now; otherwise they might grow up and become atheists. Not only that, you ought to kill all the faithful children you can find, for exactly the same reason.

Of course, you won't be going to heaven yourself if you do this; but that's a small price to pay, if you save all those children at the same time.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[ilikejam]

You'd think the almighty creator of the heavens and the earth and everything that resides therein would be able to, y'know, get his book of rules right first time round. Wouldn't you?

Re:Not all religions are bad

[langelgjm]

The Bible states that homosexual behavior is sin, along with sex before marriage, failure to respect your parents, and witchcraft, among other things.

You're right about Christianity (in general) teaching that "God hates the sin, not the sinner." But an additional problem, I think, is that people are too credulous about what's in the Bible. As others here have pointed out, the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexual behavior. Rather, it states that male homosexuality is an "abomination", similar to the way that weaving fabric out of two different fibers is an "abomination." It doesn't say anything about female homosexuality. It doesn't ban gay marriage. It does say "a man will leave his family, take a wife, and they will become one flesh," which is I suppose the "biblical" definition of marriage, though it seems to leave out polygamy, concubinage, harems, and forced marriage of raped women, all of which also happen in the Bible.

Similarly, as far as I remember, the Bible doesn't explicitly say pre-marital sex is a sin. It says a lot about how "sexual immorality" is bad (a bit tautological), and it says it's better to get married than to "burn in passion", but for a book that's full of explicit prohibitions ("thou shalt not do X"), it's surprising not to see "thou shalt not lie with a woman before thou getteth thyself married to her."

Re:Not all religions are bad

[TheGratefulNet]

This is what I love about religious debates: No one can prove their position, so it all boils down to faith. Yes, even atheists profess a faith that there is no Supreme Being.

no, that's not true. we have to explain this to you again.

there is no notion or need of 'faith' to NOT engage in a practice. right now, I'm NOT swimming (for example). am I of a group called non-swimmers? I also don't believe in unicorns. I'm of the non-unicornists (local 707, in fact). uhuh.

to not believe in jesus, to not believe in odin, to not believe in zoroaster, why do you still want to group together people who do NOT engage in practices such as these?

its not 'faith' to not_believe. its an absense of a thing.

Re:More than just a secular humanist

[geekoid]

You might want to actually read his papers.

There is saying the the US should remove Saddam, and then there is the method to go about it.

He was not a fan of Bush's method.
And he didn't misrepresent any intelligence.
And his opinion can't really be called propagandist.

And I disagreed with his arguments, but lets not act like he is the guy who made the decisions.

Your argument needs to be balance against what the regime was doing at the time... not that you actual think about your argument.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[ifiwereasculptor]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 8:22)

Seems to me like it allows you to lay down with mankind, but in a different way than with womankind. Maybe it's a tip about sexual positions. Maybe it's a warning that you should save either anal or oral just for your guy pals, so they can feel special. Maybe it's just a warning that you shouldn't drill a hole in a guy's perineum in order to emulate vaginal sex, because it was a bit too fatal.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[otopico]

Not a condemnation? Are you high?

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

You can argue as to what 'lie with mankind' means, but to suggest that ' to’evah ' translated to abomination isn't a condemnation is just dishonest.

Re:Not all religions are bad

[MightyMartian]

The reason you won't come around and hurt us or kill us is because the Enlightenment thinkers, and in particular John Locke showed how to pull your fangs. We can only hope that it eventually catches on in many Muslim countries, too, because there are a good many Mullahs who need political/social castrating, just like the West did to all its fire-and-brimstone preachers.