Christopher Hitchens. R I P

WilliamM2

Timothy Smith wrote: »

If he was right he never found out (which was what he expected).

A part of me thinks that he left that door open.

Why? And how would he leave that door open? Isn't part of the belief that you accept and believe in him?

Think about that title. It's as if I wrote a book titled "The Unicorn is a mythical beast and does not exist", and then proceeded to explain why Unicorns were bad and the source of all evil a and why I hated them so much.

Of course that's not what his book does at all. Religion DOES exist, whether true or not.

Timothy Smith

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Why? And how would he leave that door open? Isn't part of the belief that you accept and believe in him?



Of course that's not what his book does at all. Religion DOES exist, whether true or not.

Think about it, the title of the book is "God is Not Great" not "Religion is Not Great".

No one is arguing that religion does not exist.

Ironically the title presupposes that God exists.

Don't you agree that is is an odd title for Chris Hitchens to choose, and he choses every word carefully when he writes.

To belive is God requires a leap of faith since God's existence cannot be proved in conventional terms.

To believe that God does not exist also requires a leap of faith since his non-existance can, similarly, not be proven.

I always think it is curious that some atheists are as vehement (almost say..."religious") in their insistance that God doesn't exist as some deeply religious people are in their belief that God does exists. It's as if their whole belief system would be shaken to the core if they allowed for any hint of doubt, and can't stand when someone questions it.

If you met me you would likely not consider me conventionally religious. But I believe there is something above man. It doesn't bother me in the least if someone believes differently.

If there is a God and an afterlife, believers as well as non-believers will, by definition, find out.

If there in no God and no afterlife, believers as well as non-believers will, by definition, not find out.

At least we are avoiding controversial subjects like the sonic benefit of high priced speaker cables.

Thanks

WilliamM2

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Think about it, the title of the book is "God is Not Great" not "Religion is Not Great".

Actually, the title is "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything".

Timothy Smith

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Actually, the title is "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything".

Yes, that is the full title.

Mr. Hitchens knew he would get more attention and sell more books by starting off with "GOD is not great" On the cover of the book, the second part is in letters about 1/10th as high and under.

I also think that lack of religion poisons a lot of things because it proposes that there is nothing above man, and in that case a leader or an ideology becomes "god" and can be used to justify almost anything:

Not a great track record for atheistic ideologies in the 20th century:

1) Hitler's **** Germany (atheist or at least pagan) millions killed

2) Stalin's Communist Soviet Union (atheist) millions killed

3) Mao's China (atheist) millions killed

4) Pol Pot's Cambodia (atheist) millions killed

5) Castro's Cuba (atheist) thousands killed

I would agree that religion poisons many things (but not all of course).

What do you think?

BlueFox

Timothy Smith wrote: »

I also think that lack of religion poisons a lot of things because it proposes that there is nothing above man, and in that case a leader or an ideology becomes "god" and can be used to justify almost anything:

Only for "The Stupid People" with no self-esteem. Of course, your nonsense logic, or is it lack of logic, overlooks all the misery inflicted on the world by people who follow some religion, and use it to kill others. Or, as you say, "justify almost anything".

Anyway, you seem to be ruining this thread trying to rationalize your religious beliefs, and I do believe that is against the rules.

tonyb

I'd be willing to bet more have died because of religion over time than have died because of lack there of. History proves it. Not trying to take anything away from the scumbags mentioned, evil to the core they were.

Hitch was entittled to his opinion like everyone else. Agree or disagree, doesn't matter, he had a soapbox and used it to make a living. I have a hard time believing that some of these guys with mouthpieces actualy believe some of their own dribble. I lean towards the fact that they write controversial articles to bolster their image and their wallet. Jesse Jackson has been doing that his whole life. Just when you think he's gone away, he comes out with some nonsense to put the spot light back in his direction. We sure don't have a shortage of these types in todays world.

Timothy Smith

BlueFox wrote: »

Only for "The Stupid People" with no self-esteem. Of course, your nonsense logic, or is it lack of logic, overlooks all the misery inflicted on the world by people who follow some religion, and use it to kill others. Or, as you say, "justify almost anything".

Anyway, you seem to be ruining this thread trying to rationalize your religious beliefs, and I do believe that is against the rules.

I'm not sure what you mean "only for the studid people", only what?

Do you think that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot , and Castro were stupid people with no self-esteem? Quite the contrary, they very smart people with way too much self-esteem.

Do you think their followers were stupid and lack self-esteem?

Do you think people that believe in god are stupid and have no self esteem?

Do you think I'm stupid and have no self-esteem?

Where, specifically, is my "nonsense logic".

Yes, religion has and is also used to justify violence or other wrongdoing. I am especially concerned about radical Islam. And you know keep an eye on those Amish people, alway goin' crazy and killing people who don't agree with them.

How do you know what my religious beliefs are? How about guessing? I bet you would be wrong.

I thought we were talking about Mr. Hitchen's beliefs (or lack thereof), and I know he was an atheist and admired him greatly for many things and will miss him. I am conservative politically and also believe there is something above m

I would not try to guess at your beliefs except for "angry".

Face

Timothy Smith

Face wrote: »

Wow,

Let me get this straight:

So either God exists and he is therefore is personally responsible for and approves child molestation, starving children, and incidentally finding car keys and a well thrown pass.

Or he doesn't exist?

That's the choice?

Or could God exist and his some of his creations do extremely evil such as child molestation and starving children, as well as silly good crap like sucessfully finding their car keys or throw a football well?

I honestly don't know the answer and I think you don't either.

This is some trippy ****.

cnh

Come on guys. There "are" no "simple" arguments for or against religion! Both sides have a point. But I do love Mike's post above. Hitchens is merely another in a line of intellectuals who can trace their roots back to skeptics and doubters as far back as at least the Enlightenment, if not farther. If you want to read Hitchen's predecessor who pretty much said all that he said decades ago, read Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian. I guarantee you that most of Russell's line of reasoning is simply reproduced by Hitchens.

As an Anthropologist who dabbles in Comparative Religion, I cannot come down on "either" side; the believers or the skeptics. The phenomenon is too old, too variegated and too complex to sum up. So many possibilities, so many ideas and beliefs, so much good and bad. Where does one even begin? What I do is provide students with a map to chart the course of time and space and decide for themselves, but always with openness and tolerance.

While I can appreciate both Russell's and Hitchen's arguments. They are, in the end, just "one" side of an argument that I have to "represent" in class from "every" side.

Hitchens was an interesting fellow but I've met dozens of intellectuals of his caliber and some even better. But that is neither here nor there.

Let's drop the arguments and just pay our respects to the dead. That seems most appropriate.

cnh

quadzilla

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Yes, that is the full title.

Mr. Hitchens knew he would get more attention and sell more books by starting off with "GOD is not great" On the cover of the book, the second part is in letters about 1/10th as high and under.

I also think that lack of religion poisons a lot of things because it proposes that there is nothing above man, and in that case a leader or an ideology becomes "god" and can be used to justify almost anything:

Not a great track record for atheistic ideologies in the 20th century:

1) Hitler's **** Germany (atheist or at least pagan) millions killed

2) Stalin's Communist Soviet Union (atheist) millions killed

3) Mao's China (atheist) millions killed

4) Pol Pot's Cambodia (atheist) millions killed

5) Castro's Cuba (atheist) thousands killed

I would agree that religion poisons many things (but not all of course).

What do you think?

Hilter was quite religious... http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

Regarding religion poisoning many things but not all, many people that shoot themselves in the head, but not all, die. I can't recommend it as a general practice for that very reason.

quadzilla

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Wow,

Let me get this straight:

So either God exists and he is therefore is personally responsible for and approves child molestation, starving children, and incidentally finding car keys and a well thrown pass.

Or he doesn't exist?

That's the choice?

Or could God exist and his some of his creations do extremely evil such as child molestation and starving children, as well as silly good crap like sucessfully finding their car keys or throw a football well?

I honestly don't know the answer and I think you don't either.

This is some trippy ****.

The argument is a bit simpler for me than that. At its core, the argument does like this:

Either God is powerless to stop such things, and is therefore not the omnipotent being his follower claim and so is unworthy of my worship, or god has the power to stop such things, but chooses not to, making him worthy of only my contempt.

So it's not religion and science that don't mix, it's religion and logic. Hand waving about "god's plan" and "human's lack the ability to understand except through faith" are just that: hand waving. I looked behind the curtain for anything, but there was nothing, and now I find myself quite a bit happier than I was when I kept wondering why this god who was supposed to love me so much kept dumping one heap of crap after another into my life as part of some "plan". But now that I get that it's just chaos and entropy doing what chaos and entropy do, I'm good.

Timothy Smith

quadzilla wrote: »

Hilter was quite religious... http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

Regarding religion poisoning many things but not all, many people that shoot themselves in the head, but not all, die. I can't recommend it as a general practice for that very reason.

I think a better case could be made that these leaders were originally given a grounding in religion (as most are) and then rejected it.

1) Hitler was baptised and raised as a Catholic. He certainly wasn't a good one since he had an estimated 3 million Polish Catholics and killed and persecuted, imprisoned and killed priests, nuns. Some estimates are that 10% of those killed in the **** concentration camps (only a portion of all those killed were killed in concentration camps) were Catholics.

2) Stalin was baptised in the Georgian Orthodox church and received a scholarship to study and presumedly eventually enter the preisthood but was expelled. He obviouly rejected religion later in life.

3) Mao was raised as a Buddhist but rejected it.

4) Pol Pot was raised as a Buddhist but rejected it

5) Castro was raised as a Roman Catholic but rejected it

I don't get your comment about not shooting yourself in the head because "some do". I guess you could also say you recommend not shooting yourself in the head because "most don't". Why is being religious equivalent to shooting yourself in the head?

Timothy Smith

quadzilla wrote: »

The argument is a bit simpler for me than that. At its core, the argument does like this:

Either God is powerless to stop such things, and is therefore not the omnipotent being his follower claim and so is unworthy of my worship, or god has the power to stop such things, but chooses not to, making him worthy of only my contempt.

So it's not religion and science that don't mix, it's religion and logic. Hand waving about "god's plan" and "human's lack the ability to understand except through faith" are just that: hand waving. I looked behind the curtain for anything, but there was nothing, and now I find myself quite a bit happier than I was when I kept wondering why this god who was supposed to love me so much kept dumping one heap of crap after another into my life as part of some "plan". But now that I get that it's just chaos and entropy doing what chaos and entropy do, I'm good.

If there is a god I don't think he is too worried about your individual contempt for him, but suit yourself.

If there is a god we probably don't make the rules for him. Or maybe he allows us to "F" some stuff up on our own to test us, or maybe he is worrying about bigger things than "little me" (I certainly hope so).

We don't really know how "atoms" work, and we can't see them, but it is a model that we learned in school that superceded other simpler models such as "everything is made up of a combination of (1) Earth, (2) Wind, (3)Water, and (4) Fire, and it helps us understand how things work, which in, turn, will be replaced by a newer model (likely more complicated) when the old model can't explain something new that has been discovered.

Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Go back to my original arguement that atheist make a similar "leap of faith" that believers do since neither can "prove" their case when you get down to it.

WilliamM2

Timothy Smith wrote: »

Yes, that is the full title.

Which would mean he was saying that "religion is not great".

What do you think?

I think this is becoming a discussion about religion, not Christopher Hitchens, it will be closed soon.

Timothy Smith

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Which would mean he was saying that "religion is not great".



I think this is becoming a discussion about religion, not Christopher Hitchens, it will be closed soon.

I would agree that much of religion is "not great", that does not automatically mean that atheism is "great". Think in terms of death tolls in the last century for various ideologies. Keep an eye on the Amish. I was at the Chicago Museum of Science and Technology a few years back and the Amish folks seemed a bit too interested in the "Ageis class nuclear missle cruiser display. While the sophisticated "city folks" were in the next room marveling at little chickens in various stages of hatching out of eggs.

I am also getting tired of defending God, all or most religions, billions of people who believe in a god, logic, etc. on this thread, it's a lot of work and spreads me out pretty thin, and is apparently thankless.

But I will keep tryin'

tonyb

Quad- I see your point, and believe me I wrestle with that every day. If God is a God of love, how could he stand by while a kid is getting cut up into pieces by some serial nutjob ? Why so much pain and suffering in the world ? I think, and purely my own opinion, is that God gave man free will, and left it up to him what path he would take, because judgement isn't done daily, only when you die, supposedly anyway, is your final judgement rendered. God, if a supreme being exists, probably said here's free will, do with it what you will, and sat down with a cold one to see what would transpire without any intervention from him for the good or bad side of things.
Pretty much a history buff myself and history doesn't favor religion in the least. I think though if you believe in Jesus, that the agnostics were closer to what he stood for than modern day Roman Catholics. The ancient Roman Emporer, Constantine, was probably the sole person responsible for the creation of the Roman Catholics as we see them today.....and the creation of the bible for that matter. Pretty interesting stuff if any of you care to look up history, of all religions.

Those who believe in a supreme being, say in the begining, God created man.
Those who do not believe in religion say, In the begining Man created God.

If you could answer which one of those statements is correct, that would change mankind for sure. For better or worse, I dunno. Regardless if you believe in religion or not, I firmly stand with the world in general has been a better place with it than if it had none at all. It gives us somewhat of a moral roadmap, a sense that your working towards something in the afterlife, if indeed there is one. Would be nice if someone came back to let us know eh ?