Christopher Hitchens Dies At 62 910
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."
Parthenon marbles (Score:5, Informative)
Among Greeks, probably best known for one of his less-blockbuster books, 1997's The Parthenon Marbles: The Case for Reunification [versobooks.com].
The Atlantic (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a reviewer observing that Christopher Hitchens writes books faster than most people read. I suspect that was true.
Re:The Atlantic (Score:5, Informative)
I meant it to be complimentary, as he was clearly a smart guy with a talent for communicating.
Re:The Atlantic (Score:5, Funny)
Ode to Hitchens (Score:5, Funny)
Idiocy fell on his watch.
We all know that Hitch
was nobody's bitch,
so let's thank him by raising a scotch.
Bummer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, sir... (Score:5, Insightful)
You were a rare man. Thank you.
the bigots i see here aren't the religious ones (Score:3, Interesting)
people mention bombing abortion clinics, beating up gays, sorry how many times does that happen out of 2 billion Christians, maybe it more of a problem with American's then Christian's, as that type of behaviour does tend to be US centric.
The majority of Christian's i have met are actually nice people, they help the homeless, they do a lot of chariabtle work, of course there are a lot of people who proclaimed to be religious and aren't nice, but that's like saying you met an arsehole who work for starbucks, so by definition all Starbucks employees are arsehole's.
On slashdot you expect a higher level of discussion, but it's quiet funny how when you mention religion it descends into bigotry and prejudice. Again im not religious but i have no major problem with Christianity, it basic doctrines are right, i.e be nice to people, dont murder people.
People seem to forget the abolition of slavery, the fall of Communism, many of the social right's w have today where from Christian organization's in the late 19th and 20th centuries.
The passing of a brilliant man (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The passing of a brilliant man (Score:4, Insightful)
More than just a secular humanist (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Of course, it's impossible that he was genuinely mortified at the heinous conduct of Hussein, right? While Iraq today is certainly not a happy place, it's a) a little harsh to expect that Hitchens could predict the post-conflict bungling of the Bush Admin, and b) at least in the present environment Iraqis have SOME chance to choose their future themselves.
It's one thing to live in an ossified but terrifyingly murderous dictatorship, as compared to the rough conditions of a nation suffering the transition t
Re:More than just a secular humanist (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I know I'll be marked Foe for this, but... (Score:3)
...it seems the tone of religious arguments on Slashdot shifts dramatically as the US wakes up.
Really, the vast majority of fervent Christians start popping out of the woodwork here as morning rolls around in the Land of the Free.
Re:As he would have wanted... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As he would have wanted... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not your metaphysics, it's that you're an asshole. The difference should be clear.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Informative)
There's even a book, Zen at War [thezensite.com] by Brian Daizen Victoria specifically focused on how Zen influenced Japanese ideology for WWII.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Except Pascal's wager was based on a rather Eurocentric premise: That there could be belief in Christianity, or Atheism. He didn't account for multiple religions, each claiming that their own was the true path to salvation at the exclusion of all others. Messes up the calculations quite a bit.
Instead of
Belief = Salvation OR Nothing
Non-belief = Nothing OR Damnation
with "belief" being the logical choice (the worst that will happen is that when you die there will be no afterlife, and the best that can happen i
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps "Christianity" above should read "Abrahamism" to reflect the fact that Pascal would have been familiar with Judaism and probably Islam as well.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hehe, while I agree with the sentiment, there are those that believe in them all.....
Some weird offshoots of paganism/wicca mostly, some believing in all gods as aspects of each other, some believing (in quite a pratchettesque way) that belief itself forms reality and has power.
Not that I buy into any of that nonsense of course, and you could argue that they break the exclusivity clauses of the major monotheisms and so don't follow them, and... well you get the idea anyway.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Mod this up (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not condemning Hitchens for having an opinion that's different than mine. I'm condemning Hitchens for promoting a war that's left at least a hundred thousand civilians dead.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Funny)
Evil? What do you mean by that?
Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
In comparison, Theravada Buddhism is almost completely different. It promotes the idea of people thinking themselves and not just accepting what someone else tells them to. It doesn't believe in some imaginary persons or miracles - Buddha has actually lived, and isn't viewed as some kind of more than a human. It also teaches you to respect other people and in karmas law. The whole religion isn't so much an religion but good guidelines for life.
Right. So, not all religions are bad - the ones which aren't re
Hitchens criticism of buddhism (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Hitchens criticism of buddhism (Score:5, Interesting)
Invariable, as religions grow and spread they are twisted and used for evil and force people to abandon reason.
What causes the religion to start in the first place? What causes them to grow and spread? What causes them to be twisted and used for evil?
Buddhism, for example, did not start out as a religion. Siddartha Gautama figured out how to get enlightened (to end suffering completely in this lifetime) and started telling other people about it. He said you shouldn't kill people because it would hinder one's progress to enlightenment (not cause of any 'divine justice' or whatever, but simply cause the mental qualities that arise as a result of planning to and executing a murder are antithetical to the ones required to calm the mind and lead to the end of suffering). How did it get from that to people using Zen to justify slaughtering their enemies?
The issue is not with any particular religion. The issue is not with any particular person, either. The issue is the human mind's capacity to react blindly to what is happening. Not seeing what is happening with discernment, you make mistakes. You believe in things that have no proof. You cause yourself and other people to suffer. The issue is with this human capacity to believe. It's a process, not a thing.
Criticizing religions won't make a dent in it. Trying to convince particular people to not believe in their religion won't make a dent in it, because it won't solve the fundamental issue - that capacity to react blindly, aka to believe in things, aka to suffer and cause suffering.
What would make a dent in it is teaching people how to no longer react blindly to things. This is far more than just an intellectual pursuit. This capacity to react blindly and grasp at what is pleasant, reject what is unpleasant, and ignore everything in-between is quite deeply rooted... only made worse by social conditioning such as religion. Teach people a practice that, when undertaken diligently, allows for clearer and clearer seeing, which leads to less and less suffering, and less and less desire to cause suffering in others.
This is not easy. That's just what the Buddha was doing 2500 years ago. And he seemed pretty good at it - there are references to thousands of Arahats (fully enlightened people) in the Pali canon. Yet now you will be hard pressed to find one person claiming they are an Arahat. What happened? I don't know. Buddhism started out as an oral tradition for its first few hundred years... I suspect much was lost.
To summarize: going after the religion is going after something far, far further along than the root cause. If you shoot down one 'bad' religion, another will spring up, and so on ad infinitem. If you eliminate the root cause, though...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot the "god hates fags" part.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
I think someone needs to re-read Leviticus. Yahweh most certainly hates homosexuals.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Right.... except that it isn't hard at all to find that different people have interpreted it differently. A quick google search will bring up some interesting articles on the topic. Interesting if you find biblical interpretation debate interesting. I usually attribute my interest to the sort of bemused fascination that comes from having been an atheist who went to catholic schools...
The main quote on the topic is:
Some bibles have reinterpreted this to "Homosexuality is a sin", which would include lesbian acts, etc. Clearly thats a debatable stretch, but, before even debating that part, arguments about the context of the statement lead to different conclusions:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh4.htm [religioustolerance.org]
Under that interpretation, its kind of hard to use that as a condemnation of all gay sex.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't they just ask God to clarify?
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Funny)
He did, they call it Islam.
Then apparently he clarified even more, and they call that Mormonism.
It's a pity that God's definition of "clarity" seems to be the exact opposite of ours.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Funny)
So what you are saying is that God needed to add Automatic Updates into religion?
Actually, I would prefer a changelog.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Funny)
This biblical passage is a stub. You can help Christianity by expanding it.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Funny)
this reminds me of a debate I had with a Jehovah's Witness (normally I wouldn't, but she was cute, and I needed some eye candy at that time in my life). She was definitely set in her ways and me mine...
me: so how do you justify Dinosaurs? :I don't see how the age of the earth and belief in God have anything to do with one another, but ok...
her: the Devil put them there to deceive us on how old the world is
me: why would Satan do that? Seems like a total waste of time
her: to sway your belief
me
her: see? It has already swayed your belief
me: no it hasn't - I don't believe the world was made in 7 days either, but to me that is figurative
her: no, it's real
me: (shaking my head and looking up a verse in her Bible) hey - there's missing verse here, and this is strangely interpreted
her: there is nothing missing or incorrect in our Bible
me: so you're saying your mistranslation of a translation of a translation of a Bible doesn't have any mistakes?
her: it's not a mistranslation, God made sure our translation was perfect
me: so what is my Bible then?
her: a mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
What a washy interpretation . Clearly the liberal interpretation their because some people can't realize their isn't a god, even when he specifically doesn't like you.
To interpret by today's standard is absurd. You MUST interpret it in the context in which is was said.
their god doesn't like gay sex. The ONLY point of interpretation right now is does it include gay men who do not have sex.
That quote also applies to MEN. not women. Cause, who doesn't like watching hot chicks go at it?
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:4, Insightful)
"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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
And Christ specifically said to follow the old ways.
"God hates any particular category of sinner .."
except money lenders..and Pharaohs.. and first born children.
When you have a group belief, those people become easy to manipulate to do things against other people, and the feel it's ok. Cause 'god' is a higher power then law.
" Evangelical Christian and I went through two years of bible college classes while in high school."
actually, that makes you LESS likely to be a rational source.
Try studying the bible as
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Try studying the bible as it was put together. The questionable letters that were chosen, The debates about what to include, what to remove. Did they teach you that the letters the used to put together the new testament where from people who weren't alive when Christ** was? Did they teach you the some stories had Jesus added to them? and that it's very likely that the letters weren't about the same person? That the manger story isn't correct? did they teach you that the trip Mary and Joseph* took wasn't possible to do? No, I thought not.
What are you under the impression is studied in bible college classes? You're getting them confused with a bible study perhaps.
The entire validity of the Bible as a religious text rests on the assumption that it is, in its entirety "God breathed, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16)
This assumption requires the stipulation that supernatural forces controlled the evolution of the text in its entirety.
When it comes right down to it, the entire story is worthless unless Jesus was literally the Son of God who was conceived in a virgin through supernatural intervention. (Zeus never managed that now, did he?) If he was NOT the Son of God then his death was meaningless and none of the rest of the pile of cards holds any meaning at all.
In the face of those required bottom level assumptions, your petty concerns about the validity of some of the epistles are meaningless. Either God impregnated a virgin, in which case something like making sure the story was preserved correctly over the next couple thousand years would be pretty fucking easy, or he didn't in which case there's no merit in any of it whatsoever.
that makes you LESS likely to be a rational source.
I'm pretty sure a thorough understanding of the subject, along with a degree in Sociology (the science of studying social constructs such as *GASP* religion) and a neutral viewpoint (rational agnosticism) DO in fact make me a pretty rational source. :-)
I generally avoid arguing about religion, since it's so pointless, but I'm feeling bored since i just finished my last college paper ever.
I'm also aware of the conception that agnostics are all self important pricks who just love to troll both sides, and it's entirely possible that I am just being that. However, after my initial antichristian atheistic kneejerk reaction to my upbringing I learned a hell of a lot about both sides, and myself, and realized that atheistic humanism requires just as much conscious belief on my part as Christianity. YMMV, it is fucking religion after all, the great thing about living in the modern era is we each get to choose for ourselves. :-)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:4, Interesting)
So let me get this straight: God hates witchcraft. Does that, therefore, imply that witchcraft exists? That one can curse the cows of their neighbors by performing certain rituals?
Or does witchcraft not exist? If that's the case, then what does God hate in that context?
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Person 1: There are bad aspects to X.
Person 2: No! Here is a good aspect to X!
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes but it is the wrong question. 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, nor it is relevant to me. The relevant question in my view is, "Name one good, moral action you took that was motivated by religious belief, that you would not otherwise have done." In other words, ask not whether religion makes "people" more ethical, ask whether religion makes me more ethical. And BTW that is very easy to answer.
And name one wicked action committed in opposition to religion. Also easy.
I hope there is more to Hitchens' book than that. Very likely. Frankly as a religious person myself I am interested in reading it. I believe it was Aristotle who said the unexamined life is not worth living. Answering questions like these is in my opinion good for anyone's moral development, whether they prefer a religious or humanist approach.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not all religions are bad (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
The whole "be nice to people" is a small part of Christianity.
It is in no way a small part of Christianity. See Matthew 22:36-40: 36 âoeTeacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?â 37 Jesus replied: âoeâLove the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.â(TM)[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: âLove your neighbor as yourself.â(TM)[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â
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.
You don't get "thrown in the furnace" fo
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Informative)
Name me one wicked action that was committed in the name of religion.
I can't name one wicked action but I can name several.
How about The Crusades (1095-1291) which were primarily against the Muslims but also triggered increased persecution of Jews.
How about:
the Medieval Inquisition (1231-16th century)
the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834)
the Portuguese Inquisition (1536-1821)
the Roman Inquisition (1542-c. 1860)
How about the numerous witch trials from the 15th to the 18th centuries.
Yeah, nothing wicked there.
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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' "liabil
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
I think it is nice that you brought up Dominionism*. Is is a movement that Christians as a whole are either willfully ignorant of or manipulated to the point that they are forced to agree, with the stakes being their own souls. Not looking this movement in the eye is modern American Christendom's single greatest failure; they allowed fascists to sneak in and pervert their highest ideals.
*For those not familiar with it, Dominionism, it is derived from a passage in Genesis: "and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
There is even a Dominion Church that actively advocates, very literally, world domination. Yes, the Evil Genius world domination. Many of these churches require that you walk through their book store before entering and exiting the sanctuary (at least in the two I have been in), making it the "Cracker Barrel Restaurant and Old Country Store" of Christendom. They even ask business owners to join their Dominion Business Network. In a couple US cities you'll find yourself driving past a Dominion Carwash, Dominion Title Loan and Dominion Fried Chicken, all business network members who are obligated to send non-taxable donations for inclusion in the Business Network Directory (I'd love to know if it also covers any licensing fees for use of the Dominion name).
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
OK let's do this more scientifically then. Do a statistically survey in terms of "net benefit to society". Define "benefit to society" and the "minuses" how you like so we can figure out what and how you're measuring. Whether it's helping the poor, feeding the starving, building/running hospitals and schools or killing people, DUI, etc.
Then take a random sampling of a large number of atheists, christians, muslims, buddhists, etc. See how many are doing the "good stuff" vs the how many doing the "bad stuff"
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I don't have a dog in this fight, but come on. There obviously have existed atheists who wanted to attack religious freedoms. Consider what the Maoist regime did to the Buddhists in Tibet.
I completely agree, though, that the current political climate of America is swayed very far in favor of the Christians, who simultaneously view themselves as under attack. Which, to me, is less hypocrisy and more a very controlled manipulation campaign that started when the Evangelicals teamed up with the Republicans a
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have a dog in this fight, but come on. There obviously have existed atheists who wanted to attack religious freedoms. Consider what the Maoist regime did to the Buddhists in Tibet.
It was not about the Buddhists, but about Tibet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 Slas
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not all religions are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
I could say the same thing about atheists. Frankly if someone is trying to be a decent person I think they deserve congratulations and encouragement regardless of whether that effort is motivated by religious or humanist beliefs.
Re:Not all religions are bad - yes they are (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And now he finds out ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely he only finds out if he was wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife."
~Douglas Adams
Re: (Score:3)
I can't speak for God, but I appreciate people going out on a limb to make the world a better place.
Re:smoking and atheism (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've confused "atheism" with "puritanism". Easy mistake to make, I'm sure.
Re:smoking and atheism (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
The Atheist? We are all a single being now?
I would say the atheist thinks that this idea of a powerful god creature creating the world is highly unlikely, based on his perceived utter lack of evidence. (I say percieved because, even though I am an atheist, I know other people who, while living in this same objective reality, perceive such evidence... incorrect as they may be :) )
Beyond that, how one approaches life is up to them. Being an atheist neither makes one happy or sad, confident or confident, depre
Re:Big geek was he? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Pascal's Wager (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Did he make a last minute bet?
Why would anyone expect a last-minute conversion?
Apparently people don't believe us when we say we don't believe their fantasies; we're just saying we don't so we won't have to behave.
Re:Never heard of him (Score:4, Interesting)
If you even bothered to read the summary, the answer was "no." And your hope isn't for his sake: it's really for yours -- the fact that somebody else believes in your fantasy serves only to bolster your belief.
Additionally, have a look at this [youtube.com].
Re:Never heard of him (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Religious faith isn't what causes the bad effects of religion. Misguided belief in failed ideologies does that.
The only way to avoid the bad effects of religion is to avoid misguided belief. The only way to avoid misguided belief is to support your beliefs with evidence. This is inconsistent with faith, which is belief without evidence.
It's not "religious faith" that's bad, it's just faith that's bad.