Christopher Hitchens 1-0 Tony Blair

[Derek Smith]

cymtriks said:

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?

Two points, or maybe more as I might think of more as I'm typing:

There are many other aid shops which do not base their presence on religious dogma. Therefore the religious part is of no consequence. Indeed, as some of the money goes to church coffers one might suggest it is a negative.

Secondly, what about mother Theresa? Read carefully what the modern religious icon believed in and did. Despite receiving considerable funds specifically for her mission it was spent elsewhere.

And what about condoms? Fair enough pope might have changed his mind but stable doors and horses spring to mind.

And the question was religion, not a specific one, and I would suggest there are many inquisition-style organisations in this country and many more elsewhere.

Read The Dark Side of Christian History. Although largely historical - but eye-opening - if finishes with a comment on the current situation and a warning for the future.

[Bill]

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.

Would you agree that the implementation leaves a certain amount to be desired?

[grumbledoak]

Anoyone wanting a more light-hearted take on the subject should seek out Ken Smith's Guide to the Bible...

Edited by grumbledoak on Monday 29th November 17:45

[cymtriks]

Derek Smith said:

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.

You could say the same about the highway code but if you ignored it completely and drove any old way you liked then there would be chaos.

Remember that you are free to choose a religion and therefore the morality it specifies, this implies a positive action.

Derek Smith said:

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.

It is a moral decision in both cases. The church takes a very unfashionable stand but it is consistent with other areas of its teaching.

Derek Smith said:

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.

Utter rubbish. It is hard to state just how ignorant that statement is.

The Bible definitely states that sex is good especially in the Song of Solomon.

The Churches condemnation of excessive (remember contraception is a fairly modern idea) sex could be seen as a very realistic stance against food shortages and overcrowding. The Church certainly wouldn't be the only religious or political organisation to control fertility in some way for these reasons. The attitudes against sex outside marriage became more extreme as potentially deadly STDs became more common in Europe. The stance on contraception was that its use would encourage men to be arrogant over nature and have contempt for women. Once again, though it is very unfashionable to point it out, they may well have a point. Despite widespread sex education and readily available contraception family values are held in lower esteem, unwanted pregnancies have increased, divorce is more common and STDs have increased.

I can honestly say that of all the Christian acquaintances and friends I've had I've never met any that had a problem with sex. Oddly all of the people I've known whose exs consistently alluded to "issues" were atheist or agnostic. Some Christians I know have stated that sex should be reserved for marriage and a few actually live by that view. Guess what, non of them had a problem with sex, they regarded it as good and restricting it to someone important to them was usually more an issue of self respect than slavish adherence to dogma.

Perhaps you have actually met a Christian with a problem in this area but I suspect that you haven't, you just didn't expect anyone to challenge you.

Derek Smith said:

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.

Would you say that we were better off without laws, the highway code, flat pack instructions or owners manuals because they were a barrier to thinking for oneself?

Your stance is the same.

An individual chooses a faith and therefore chooses the moral codes that come with it. This is a positive act.

[cymtriks]

Bill said:

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.

Would you agree that the implementation leaves a certain amount to be desired?

People break the law and some laws are widely regarded as having doubtfull value, does that mean that having laws is a bad thing as the imlementation is not perfect?

[audidoody]

Derek Smith said:

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.

"Rubbish"? "Rubbish"?

Surely you should support your critique of my concise illustration of the conundrum of theology with an irrefutable rebuttal based on a sound philosophical analysis of the meaning of faith.

On the other hand if you're parodying "Life of Brian", it was quite funny.

Reg: "What religion wants anyone to be good? All they want is for you to join. Beyond that they don't really care"
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: Methodists?
Reg: Yeah. Well alright. Methodists. But APART from the Methodists what religion wants anyone to be good?
Jewish Official: The Jews? They say "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Reg: Yeah, Yeah. The Jews as well.
Jewish Official: Catholics? They'll send you to hell if you're not good. Buddhists? You can be reborn as a fly if you're not good".
Reg: All right, but apart from the Jews, the Methodists, The Catholics, and the Buddhists what religion wants everyone to be good?"
Jewish Official: Hindus?
Reg: "Oh, shut up!"

[TheDutch]

For those that are interested, Paxman's interview with Hitchens is on BBC2 imminently.

[DJC]

MilnerR 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?

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

Couldnt care less about the arguments. They could be arguing Liverpool for the league for all it matters.
Its just that Hitchens and Dawkins irritate the tits off me.

To put this in perspective, I find Blair and Brown only mildly annoying compared to Hitchens and Dawkins. Gok Won and Trinny & Susanna are mere triffles compared to those 2 goits. Christ, they even make David Starkey look modest and humble.

[Derek Smith]

cymtriks said:

did a point by point critique of my post.

I think you do not understand the basis of the various religions that call themselves christian. They have the one handbook. It is either the inspired word of the specific version of the god they follow or it is not. But the catholic church makes interpretations solely on its interpretations of the text. There is no moral perspective. It is solely as to whether an action contravenes the rules.

And as for the attitude of the church to sex: I don’t accept your argument that because those you’ve met are quite laid back about sex it wipes clean the previous nigh on 2000 years. I could list the comments from various churches against women over this period but they would be repetitive.

There is an alternative argument that the refusal to endorse condoms makes the spread of STD more likely. Neither, I feel, is the total answer.

Later you seem to suggest that without religion there can be no laws. But in prehistory there were rules of conduct. It would appear people were punished for going against accepted conduct. Further, after Rome left the Constantine religion (it was hardly christian) fell into disuse in many place across the country but I am unaware if any more shoplifting or coventing neighbours' cows went on. People should make decisions as to what is acceptable for them, their group and their country. Dumping religion and making decisions on the ground of a moralistic view will, I think, make us better off.

You seem to suggest that people are free to pick their own religion but in most cases this is not true. If you are indoctrinated as a kid it is very difficult to throw it off. I was spared the worst of it but I was exposed to the views of a bunch of very sad women, the hail mary side of my family. It took me ages to get rid of it. Further, isn’t it supposed to be all about faith?

Your final comment is specious. There is no comparison between instructions for Ikea products. I’d use the analogy of examining a problem. The more different ways of solving it you have to choose from the more chance you have of being able to pick one of the best ones. Or, perhaps, a better one might be a destination. Let people pick their own routes. You might want to take the high road and I the low. Why should I follow you?

But to make my point clear: there is no moral stance in a church that depends on its rules on a book. Of course there is not. It is following instructions. If pope says it, it must be right is amoral. That is passing the buck.

[Victor McDade]

TheDutch said:

For those that are interested, Paxman's interview with Hitchens is on BBC2 imminently.

Interesting and thought provoking.

Well worth watching.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00wkrbk/News...

[Derek Smith]

TheDutch said:

For those that are interested, Paxman's interview with Hitchens is on BBC2 imminently.

Thanks for that.

[cymtriks]

Derek Smith said:

I think you do not understand the basis of the various religions that call themselves christian. They have the one handbook. It is either the inspired word of the specific version of the god they follow or it is not. But the catholic church makes interpretations solely on its interpretations of the text. There is no moral perspective. It is solely as to whether an action contravenes the rules.

I think they would argue that they apply a set of rules they regard as moral in as consistent a manner as possible. Though they may not be right it is hard to see why adopting this approach would automatically be wrong.

Derek Smith said:

And as for the attitude of the church to sex: I don’t accept your argument that because those you’ve met are quite laid back about sex it wipes clean the previous nigh on 2000 years. I could list the comments from various churches against women over this period but they would be repetitive.

The church's historic attitudes are of little relevance today and were broadly consistent with the views of society at the time.

You could list the attitudes of any organisation from hundreds of years ago and many would appear very wrong by today's standards.

It is very hard to make out that the church is uniquely wrong over this issue.

Why do you state that the examples I gave are "quite laid back", have you any evidence at all that they are not broadly representative of modern Christian attitudes? Have you ever met a Christian of your own age who had a sexual problem due to their religion? If you have then do they outnumber the problems you've heard of in the wider population?

Derek Smith said:

There is an alternative argument that the refusal to endorse condoms makes the spread of STD more likely. Neither, I feel, is the total answer.

You are confusing two issues, the churches teachings against sexual excesses (their definition at the time) coincided with a time of no contraception and limited resources and more lately with a time of rising STDs including the deadly syphilis, the churches specific objection to modern contraception was that it would encourage arrogance over nature and contempt for women. It's a very unfashionable viewpoint and, as you say, a very complex issue, however they do have a point however uncomfortable it may be. I know of several women who believed themselves to be in happy relationships until they broached the subject of children and suddenly found themselves single. Plenty of threads on this subject on PH, just look at some of the responses. While it would be wrong to say that these attitudes were caused by modern contraception it would be fair to say that there is little evidence that attitudes have improved in some quarters.

Just to make things clear I'm not agreeing with the churches teaching or its rationale, merely putting the case for their viewpoint.

Derek Smith said:

Later you seem to suggest that without religion there can be no laws.

No, I didn't. You suggested that blindly following rules showed an unwillingness to permit free thought. I presented a counter argument.

Derek Smith said:

You seem to suggest that people are free to pick their own religion but in most cases this is not true. If you are indoctrinated as a kid it is very difficult to throw it off. I was spared the worst of it but I was exposed to the views of a bunch of very sad women, the hail Mary side of my family. It took me ages to get rid of it. Further, isn’t it supposed to be all about faith?

Your final comment is specious. There is no comparison between instructions for Ikea products. I’d use the analogy of examining a problem. The more different ways of solving it you have to choose from the more chance you have of being able to pick one of the best ones. Or, perhaps, a better one might be a destination. Let people pick their own routes. You might want to take the high road and I the low. Why should I follow you?

But to make my point clear: there is no moral stance in a church that depends on its rules on a book. Of course there is not. It is following instructions. If pope says it, it must be right is amoral. That is passing the buck.

But you did choose to go your own way. Any set of rules could be viewed as merely following instructions but in most cases rules were put in place (religion, flatpacks, highway code...) to assist everyone by curtailing or mandating specific behaviours. Why is the church not moral for having a list of official moral rules?

[DJC]

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.

Im a God botherer?
Yes, of course I am. Church everday me. Read the Bible everynight.
Oh no, wait, I dont.

I just find Hitchens an annoying tosser. Personally I find it very hard to understand anybody of sane mind who doesnt find him a tosser. He is the Eminem of the philosophy/literary world. Yes, we know, umpteen books and speeches and rants and lectures about God, the Church and Religion in general. OK, we get it, you dont like them. We know already! Now shut the fck up about it! The rest of us dont care, we care about paying out mortgages, we care about our car, we care about getting to work on time. We dont care about you forever blathering on about stuff that the rest of us dont give a stuff about it.

[Derek Smith]

cymtriks said:

Put some counter arguments

I appreciate your comments, and especially the polite way in which they are couched.

I wonder if that will cath on.

However, our argument has bogged down a bit and I feel neither of us is likely to convince the other of our beliefs.

I would say let's leave it there but you made one comment which I feel I must take you up on:

" . . . the churches specific objection to modern contraception was that it would encourage arrogance over nature and contempt for women."

The church's argument has been that contraception is against scripture - every sperm is sacred. They may dress it up in various ways but fundamentally there is absolutely no moral justification at all. So it is written is the only requirement.

I've had a lifelong interest in religion, at least the various christian religions, from their affect on the lives of the common people to them as a political force. It started as a spotty youth who was always being taken to task by some parts of my rather large family for not exposing myself to the church. So I did a bit of research to counter their arguments.

It was easy enough. Most hadn't read the bible and in those days services were taken in a form of Latin in order to keep congregations ignorant. So when one of them said something I could point out that they were wrong: 10 commandments auntie? Don't you mean the 16? Although the actual number is open to argument. Mary wasn't a virgin until the 18th c, auntie Lil. Is that the miracle you meant? No, uncle Albert. I think you will find Henry VIII was always a catholic. The pope gave him the title of defender of the faith. It's just that he didn't want to follow the western pope. Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't you know there was an eastern catholic pope?

Childish I know but I was little more than a child at the time so I had an excuse. At school we had a teacher who treated religion as a political movement and all of a sudden everything seemed to fit. It was my road to Damascus moment. Once I understood that fundamental fact the progress of religion became a lot more logical.

The Holy Roman Empire treated as a religious movement makes no sense. As an attempt to take over Europe (the first EU?) it had mixed reviews.

The church on occasion did some good when it worked with governments. Each one could take the edge of the other's excesses. But the norm was they joined together or were always fighting, both extremes causing much in the way of collateral damage.

As the church has lost dominance and recedes it has changed tactics to a limited extent. This was more apparent under the previous pope than this, rather reactionary, one. The climb down over condoms, even if to such a limited extent, is remarkable and one wonders what forced him into the retraction.

The CoE has been disappearing in a spiral of logic for some time, which is a shame as it often did a lot of good over recent years. There’s the Sally Ann. I give to two charities out of my wages and the Salvation Army is one, although the smaller. I disagree with some of its teaching but you can’t work in London, late at night, without being amazed at how much good work they do. They look after the ones that the state and other religions tend to find a bit difficult.

So thanks again for the argument. It may come as a surprise to some on here but I do enjoy that sort of thing. But I think we will just end up gainsaying what the other says.

But I’ll let you have the last word on this particular argument if you wish.

[audidoody]

DJC:

Did you spot the irony of accusing other people of being "annoying tossers" and participating in an internet thread on a subject on which you don't "give a stuff about"? Probably not.

Perhaps you should pop over to the "Jobs and Employment Matters" forum where I'm sure you'll find something to interest you. You're clearly struggling with the concepts being discussed here.

And chill out. I fear you're about to have an aneurism and prove Hitchens' case that there is no after-life rather sooner than you anticipated.

That is all.

[DJC]

Lost me, jobs and employment forum?

I anticipate no afterlife. Why would I? Or have you not yet grasped that Im not religious? I belong to no religious group, I dont attend Church, I dont subscribe to any great set of religious beliefs, I feel no inclination to go on a Crusade, join a Jihad or even just bake cakes to sell for the local parish.

In short I rather suspect religion to me is much like it is to the vast majority of the great British public...irrelevent. We kinda like the olde churches, we think little old men in dog collars are nice to see, we probably expect to get married in one, have a funeral service in one and thats about it. Its a backdrop to British life we completely ignore until we are forced to listen to a bunch of shrill shouty intellectual giants who demand that we all go on anti-God crusade. We dont want to be anti-God anymore than we want to be pro-God, we just want you all to be quiet. With Hitchens departing the mortal coil it will at least mean one less shouty voice. This is a good thing.

[Frankeh]

BeeRoad said:

enioldjoe said:

BeeRoad said:

Including this one?

Ex 20 vs 5 "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.

vs 6 ".....but showing mercy to thousands to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."

Edited by enioldjoe on Sunday 28th November 10:26

So, rather like any human dictator then - do as I say and you live, disagree and I will kill four generations of your children. Nice.

Difference being that dictators die/can be killed. A belief system is much harder to kill.

[audidoody]

DJC said:

Lost me, jobs and employment forum?

I anticipate no afterlife. Why would I? Or have you not yet grasped that Im not religious? I belong to no religious group, I dont attend Church, I dont subscribe to any great set of religious beliefs, I feel no inclination to go on a Crusade, join a Jihad or even just bake cakes to sell for the local parish.

In short I rather suspect religion to me is much like it is to the vast majority of the great British public...irrelevent. We kinda like the olde churches, we think little old men in dog collars are nice to see, we probably expect to get married in one, have a funeral service in one and thats about it. Its a backdrop to British life we completely ignore until we are forced to listen to a bunch of shrill shouty intellectual giants who demand that we all go on anti-God crusade. We dont want to be anti-God anymore than we want to be pro-God, we just want you all to be quiet. With Hitchens departing the mortal coil it will at least mean one less shouty voice. This is a good thing.

OK. Let’s re-cap. You hope Richard Dawkins contracts a terminal illness because his atheism doesn’t fit your belief system. In fact you appear to want anyone who "shouts" a lot to die. This was what we in a democratic country which gives reign to free speech call "tyrannical extremism". It is, for example, why there is a war in Afghanistan against a group of people who want to kill all the "shouty" people who don't believe in the same things as they do.

But while you condemn Dawkins to an awful death by cancer you don’t appear to offer any valid reason why his philosophy is invalid.

What reasons would you give to counter Dawkins' gene-centered view of evolution?

Why would you assume his theory that "all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities" is incorrect? How would you counter his argument that natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world without the intervention of a divine being?

I'm all ears.

Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 30th November 12:57

[audidoody]

DJC said:

Lost me, jobs and employment forum?

I anticipate no afterlife. Why would I? Or have you not yet grasped that Im not religious? I belong to no religious group, I dont attend Church, I dont subscribe to any great set of religious beliefs, I feel no inclination to go on a Crusade, join a Jihad or even just bake cakes to sell for the local parish.

In short I rather suspect religion to me is much like it is to the vast majority of the great British public...irrelevent. We kinda like the olde churches, we think little old men in dog collars are nice to see, we probably expect to get married in one, have a funeral service in one and thats about it. Its a backdrop to British life we completely ignore until we are forced to listen to a bunch of shrill shouty intellectual giants who demand that we all go on anti-God crusade. We dont want to be anti-God anymore than we want to be pro-God, we just want you all to be quiet. With Hitchens departing the mortal coil it will at least mean one less shouty voice. This is a good thing.

OK. Let’s re-cap. You hope Richard Dawkins contracts a terminal illness because his atheism doesn’t fit your belief system. In fact you appear to want anyone who "shouts" a lot to die. This was what we in a democratic country which gives reign to free speech call "tyrannical extremism". It is, for example, why there is a war in Afghanistan against a group of people who want to kill all the "shouty" people who don't believe in the same things as they do.

But while you condemn Dawkins to an awful death by cancer you don’t appear to offer any valid reason why his philosophy is invalid.

What reasons would you give to counter Dawkins' gene-centered view of evolution?

Why would you assume his theory that "all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities" is incorrect? How would you counter his argument that natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world without the intervention of a divine being?

I'm all ears.

Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 30th November 12:58

[The real Apache]

The Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation and much of it was divinely inspired by Pagan religions from which the Christians pinched any little morsel that suited their fancy. The Virgin Mary was not a virgin until she was dead two hundred years, the Christians stole that myth from Athena who had been a virgin for three thousand years before Christ was born and five thousand years before Doris Day was a virgin.