Christopher Hitchens 1-0 Tony Blair

[cymtriks]

BeeRoad said:

cymtriks said:

They're wrong.

The motion his nothing at all to do with the existence of any diety or what their plan may be.

The motion specifically proposes that religion is a force for good.

As religions usually emphasise good deads and moral codes and the vast majority of religious people try to follow these guidelines it would seem that this is a reasonable statement.

Or, to put it another way, if everyone started aiming to follow the ten commandments, forgive others and be charitable would this be good or bad?

Including this one?

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

Sounds like a nasty piece of work to me, this god.

And your response misses the point completely.

The question was not "Does this diety seem like a nice being", it was "is religion a good thing".

If a group of people belive that they should strive to live by a moral code and do good deads this is surely a good thing. Where they get the idea from is irrelevent.

[cymtriks]

branflakes said:

cymtriks said:

As religions usually emphasise good deads and moral codes and the vast majority of religious people try to follow these guidelines it would seem that this is a reasonable statement.

Which explains why, in the USA where 75% of the population consider themselves to be christian and 15% consider themselves to be agnostic/athiest, the prison populations are 75% christian and 0.2% agnostic/athiest.

Or is obeying the law not considered morally correct amongst christians?

So if you believe that you are instructed to strive to be good and/or follow some moral code and don't succeed then that makes the original instruction wrong?

[audidoody]

Prof Prolapse said:

audidoody said:

All Hitchens had to do to prove there is no God was point out to the audience that he is the one with terminal cancer, not Blair.

How does one prove a negative?

For example, I don't have an apple. How do I prove this?

Whoosh ...

[collateral]

Halb said:

glazbagun said:

Love that there were still Iraq War protesters following him around.

Prolly for a good while yet

Faith in the existence of things which couldn't be proven to exist. I'm starting to notice a pattern here...

[BeeRoad]

cymtriks said:

BeeRoad said:

cymtriks said:

They're wrong.

The motion his nothing at all to do with the existence of any diety or what their plan may be.

The motion specifically proposes that religion is a force for good.

As religions usually emphasise good deads and moral codes and the vast majority of religious people try to follow these guidelines it would seem that this is a reasonable statement.

Or, to put it another way, if everyone started aiming to follow the ten commandments, forgive others and be charitable would this be good or bad?

Including this one?

"You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me"

Sounds like a nasty piece of work to me, this god.

And your response misses the point completely.

The question was not "Does this diety seem like a nice being", it was "is religion a good thing".

If a group of people belive that they should strive to live by a moral code and do good deads this is surely a good thing. Where they get the idea from is irrelevent.

I didn't miss the point - you suggested abiding by the ten commandments would be a good thing. I suggested one that is more threat of violence than moral guide.

Whether a group of people living by a moral code they agree on is a good thing or not is entirely dependent on the contents of that code and how that group treat people who don't agree with their code.

PS - it's 'deeds' not deads, freudian anyone?

[Derek Smith]

There is no moral side to the church. They do not pick and choose what to do by a careful consideration of right and wrong but purely on interpretation of dogma. That's not morality.

Religion takes away the need for any personal morality. Do what the priest/vicar/shaman/witchdoctor says and you are home and dry. If a few million catch AIDS because of dogma, then that's nothing to do with me. It's in the book. If families have kid after kid after kid then it must be good because it says something about it in the book. There is no moral decision required.

Sex must be bad because the book says so. This has permeated the western culture for nearly 2000 years and causes more hang-ups that just about any other belief.

Without religion people have to think for themselves. Can't have that, can we.

I mean, the bible! It's impossible to get through to some people that it is not gospel.

[birdcage]

audidoody said:

Prof Prolapse said:

audidoody said:

All Hitchens had to do to prove there is no God was point out to the audience that he is the one with terminal cancer, not Blair.

How does one prove a negative?

For example, I don't have an apple. How do I prove this?

Whoosh ...

Schrödinger's cat?

There is no god by the way, and I always find it ironic that the people who do believe are often the poorest, a controlling mechanism?

[DJC]

audidoody said:

All Hitchens had to do to prove there is no God was point out to the audience that he is the one with terminal cancer, not Blair.

Really? Best news Ive had all day.
Any chance the equally insufferably irritating, arrogant, smug, annoying tosser Dawkins has something terminal? Please?

[Derek Smith]

Prof Prolapse said:

How does one prove a negative?

For example, I don't have an apple. How do I prove this?

Couldn't you try counting all the apples? The resulting total would 'quite obviously' define how many apples you had. If the answer came to zero then I would suggest that this would indicate, at least to me, that you had no apples.

[TuxRacer]

DJC said:

audidoody said:

All Hitchens had to do to prove there is no God was point out to the audience that he is the one with terminal cancer, not Blair.

Really? Best news Ive had all day.
Any chance the equally insufferably irritating, arrogant, smug, annoying tosser Dawkins has something terminal? Please?

That's a bit left field. Couldn't think of anyone else to wish cancer on that might've been a little closer to the thread topic?

[MilnerR]

DJC said:

audidoody said:

All Hitchens had to do to prove there is no God was point out to the audience that he is the one with terminal cancer, not Blair.

Really? Best news Ive had all day.
Any chance the equally insufferably irritating, arrogant, smug, annoying tosser Dawkins has something terminal? Please?

Try beating their arguments instead of attacking them personally. Only attempt this if you have the brains to grasp their arguments in the first place

[branflakes]

cymtriks said:

branflakes said:

cymtriks said:

As religions usually emphasise good deads and moral codes and the vast majority of religious people try to follow these guidelines it would seem that this is a reasonable statement.

Which explains why, in the USA where 75% of the population consider themselves to be christian and 15% consider themselves to be agnostic/athiest, the prison populations are 75% christian and 0.2% agnostic/athiest.

Or is obeying the law not considered morally correct amongst christians?

So if you believe that you are instructed to strive to be good and/or follow some moral code and don't succeed then that makes the original instruction wrong?

Not at all. However, since the bible upon which the christian religion is based also condones sexism, racist, homophobia, slavery and child abuse amongst others and as you pointed out, the original question was:

cymtriks said:

"is religion a good thing".

I'd have to say the answer is "no". You can't just ignore the bad aspects while spluttering "but, but, what about all these good things that religion promotes?".

[audidoody]

DJC said:

audidoody said:

All Hitchens had to do to prove there is no God was point out to the audience that he is the one with terminal cancer, not Blair.

Really? Best news Ive had all day.
Any chance the equally insufferably irritating, arrogant, smug, annoying tosser Dawkins has something terminal? Please?

Hilarious. A God-botherer who wishes a terminal disease on someone he doesn't know for not sharing his beliefs in a Man In The Sky Who Wants Everyone To Be Good.

Thank Christ I'm an atheist.

[Dave Angel]

audidoody said:

DJC said:

audidoody said:

All Hitchens had to do to prove there is no God was point out to the audience that he is the one with terminal cancer, not Blair.

Really? Best news Ive had all day.
Any chance the equally insufferably irritating, arrogant, smug, annoying tosser Dawkins has something terminal? Please?

Hilarious. A God-botherer who wishes a terminal disease on someone he doesn't know for not sharing his beliefs in a Man In The Sky Who Wants Everyone To Be Good.

Thank Christ I'm an atheist.

Class post!

[cottonfoo]

cymtriks said:

As religions usually emphasise good deads and moral codes and the vast majority of religious people try to follow these guidelines it would seem that this is a reasonable statement.

Or, to put it another way, if everyone started aiming to follow the ten commandments, forgive others and be charitable would this be good or bad?

Do the Ten Commandments apply to every religion then? Or do you think all religious people should follow your religion? That's what the quote implies.

Feel free to believe whatever you like, but you're already imposing your beliefs on others!

[Bill]

Derek Smith said:

I mean, the bible! It's impossible to get through to some people that it is not gospel.

I see what you did there.

[cymtriks]

branflakes said:

cymtriks said:

branflakes said:

cymtriks said:

As religions usually emphasise good deads and moral codes and the vast majority of religious people try to follow these guidelines it would seem that this is a reasonable statement.

Which explains why, in the USA where 75% of the population consider themselves to be christian and 15% consider themselves to be agnostic/athiest, the prison populations are 75% christian and 0.2% agnostic/athiest.

Or is obeying the law not considered morally correct amongst christians?

So if you believe that you are instructed to strive to be good and/or follow some moral code and don't succeed then that makes the original instruction wrong?

Not at all. However, since the bible upon which the christian religion is based also condones sexism, racist, homophobia, slavery and child abuse amongst others and as you pointed out, the original question was:

cymtriks said:

"is religion a good thing".

I'd have to say the answer is "no". You can't just ignore the bad aspects while spluttering "but, but, what about all these good things that religion promotes?".

Why do you have to say that the answer is no? Is it just fashionable to bash religion without even bothering to read the actual question?

None of those things you mention apply to mainstrean modren religious teaching. They did apply a very long time ago at which time they were pretty much in line with normal life.

Considering modren mainstream religion it is hard to think of much that is obviously bad, most of what is debateable is mired in complex moral arguments relating to other parts of an overall moral code.

I can find a Christain Aid shop quite easily, can you find me a curent inquisition in the UK?

[Derek Smith]

Dave Angel said:

audidoody said:

DJC said:

audidoody said:

All Hitchens had to do to prove there is no God was point out to the audience that he is the one with terminal cancer, not Blair.

Really? Best news Ive had all day.
Any chance the equally insufferably irritating, arrogant, smug, annoying tosser Dawkins has something terminal? Please?

Hilarious. A God-botherer who wishes a terminal disease on someone he doesn't know for not sharing his beliefs in a Man In The Sky Who Wants Everyone To Be Good.

Thank Christ I'm an atheist.

Class post!

I have to disagree there. It is a rubbish post. What religion wants anyone to be good? All they want is for you to join. Beyond that they don't really care.

Exlcuding methodists of course who don't really want anything except for you not to drink.

[cymtriks]

cottonfoo said:

cymtriks said:

As religions usually emphasise good deads and moral codes and the vast majority of religious people try to follow these guidelines it would seem that this is a reasonable statement.

Or, to put it another way, if everyone started aiming to follow the ten commandments, forgive others and be charitable would this be good or bad?

Do the Ten Commandments apply to every religion then? Or do you think all religious people should follow your religion? That's what the quote implies.

Feel free to believe whatever you like, but you're already imposing your beliefs on others!

I never said the ten commandments did or should apply to all religions, I assumed that the main topic of debate would be Christianity so took an example from that faith.

I'm not imposing belief on anyone.

Most religions emphasise good deeds, charity, moral codes and self improvement.

This surely makes religion a good thing, it would seem rather strange to to suppose otherwise.

[BeeRoad]

cymtriks said:

Most religions emphasise good deeds, charity, moral codes and self improvement.

This surely makes religion a good thing, it would seem rather strange to to suppose otherwise.

I can't see how the fact that religions take good deeds, charity and moral codes that we all know for ourselves anyway and then try to claim them as their own makes them a good thing. I suppose if one is sufficiently slow-witted and amoral that you can't tell good from bad, then a religion may be for you. For the rest of us I suspect common sense and a conscience are a better option than doing good for fear of eternal damnation if you don't.