[stevejazzx]

“I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religon”

say Christopher Hitchenshere

"We are a poorly evolved mamalian species...our pre frontal lobes are too small, our adrenalin glands are too big and our thumb finger opposition isn't all that great....we are afraid of the dark and are afraid to die and we believe in the truths of holy books that are so stupid and so fabricated that even children see through them...and I think religon should be treated therefore with ridicule and contempt and I claim ythe right to do so..."

Powerful words indeed. Hitchens seems to argue that from an evolutionary point of view, we are still an easily frightened species of undeveloped mamals, irrational and superstitious. I can but agree with him there. He reckons that religon is ineradicable within people who are frightened of the dark and of death. These overwhelming fears lead people to the 'false' comfort of religon, so they can imagine that there is a gracious benefactor overseeing their voyage through life. It is our primordial fears that have lead us into superstition and that religon is, therefore, essentially the result of fear.

On Islam

"It makes quite large claims for itself, it says that it is the final revelation, it says that God spoke to one illiterate business man in the arabian peninsula,three times through an archangel and the resulting material that you can see when you read it is largely plagarised from the old and the new testament, almost all of it actually is plagarised (ineptly) from the the old and the new testamnet and it is to be accepted as a divine revelation and as the final and unalterable one and that those who do not accept this revelation are fit to be treated as cattle, infidels, chattel....well I tell you what, I don't think Mohammed ever heard those voices, I don't believe it and the liklihood that I'm right as opposed to the liklihood that a businessman who couldn't read had bits of the old and new testamnet dictated to him, I think puts me near the position of being objectively correct but who is the one under threat?

I think that Christopher makes an excellent point here and obviously it's not exclusive to Islam, so why are we more protective of religous opinion, declaring every under the sun sacred when in fact the position of objective truth more than likley falls on the side of the opposer of religous doctrine. It seems to me that these laws being brought into place to protect religon are in facts laws to curb the right of speech on such topics. If we not free dismantle the constructs of religon and openly criticise it's practice or history then we simply are relenting on our duty as enlightened beings and afford these insitiutions more piety and sacredness until eventually the slightest negative thought of any malcontented individual is treated with an instant beheading, hanging or other similar ritualistic cultist events with which all exclusive societies have always associated themsleves with as if it reinforces their connection with some supernatural element when in fact all it does it underline their staion as one of superstition and ignorance.

[Zombrex]

Fighting words indeed,

There is of course no such thing as an under-evolved animal, so I'm not quite sure what he means. It seems like a rather round-about way to say "idiot", and I don't particularly like the quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo that evolutionary development increases intelligence or would make people less religious.

Enlightenment (which I'm all for) has nothing to do with evolution.

He is right about religion being a product of fear, fear of death, fear of the unknown etc. He kinda answers his own question there though. People show religion an unreasonable amount of respect because of the desire to not invoke this fear in people. Such acts can be uncomfortable for both the religious person and the sceptic.

So when someone goes "I'm praying to God that I don't die of cancer" most people wouldn't go "Heck that won't do any good, God doesn't exist .. you are going to die for sure"

[Tim Robbins]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

“I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religon”

say Christopher Hitchenshere

Hitchens - a complete nob. His book "God is not Great" the worst book on atheism I have ever read. An embarrassment really. How he is perceived as an intellectual is beyond me.

[stevejazzx]

Originally Posted by Wicknight

Fighting words indeed,

There is of course no such thing as an under-evolved animal, so I'm not quite sure what he means.

Yes but it is true that an animal may evolve further. Anyways I think he is simply trying to underline our inadequacies or what may be percieved as our inadeqaucies in respect of our place in the world.

Originally Posted by wicknight

It seems like a rather round-about way to say "idiot", and I don't particularly like the quasi-scientific mumbo jumbo that evolutionary development increases intelligence or would make people less religious.
Enlightenment (which I'm all for) has nothing to do with evolution.

Ok I've see an number of threads go down the enlightenment/evolution road to diastrous consequnces so lets not go there. Clever poeple will indeed know that evolution is exclusively a physical event.

Originally Posted by wicknight

....People show religion an unreasonable amount of respect because of the desire to not invoke this fear in people.

I'm not quite sure exactly what you're saying here...the only reason I can think of why the authorities afford religon so much protection is becasue they intend to preserve it as an institution, which they can may use for their own ends.

[stevejazzx]

Originally Posted by Tim Robbins

Hitchens - a complete nob. His book "God is not Great" the worst book on atheism I have ever read. An embarrassment really. How he is perceived as an intellectual is beyond me.

Tim..he is exceptionally overbearing at times and his voice can initate in some people an almost instant contempt but I have no doubt that he is a powerful intellectual and authority on the subject at hand, religon.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturev.../Blasphemy.mp3

Listen to the above, it is a brilliant debate between him and Stephen Fry on the incitement to religous hatred bill...

I haven't read God is not Great so can't comment there but his historical texts abnd essays on the American constitution and his new book about Orwell are all IMO quite good.

[Hivemind187]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

Yes but it is true that an animal may evolve further.

That assumes evolution is a linear process. Its not.

An organism may develop more complexity (which is I think what you mean here) but that doesnt suggest that it is more or less evolved than any other animal, rather it is more adapted to its environment and specific mechanisms it uses to exploit that environment.

However, the trouble with Hitchens is I think he lets heis temper and fluidity in prose run away with him.

[stevejazzx]

Originally Posted by Hivemind187

That assumes evolution is a linear process. Its not.

That assumes that 'further' can only infer a linear direction when in fact it is a quite flexible word. Anyways lets not have this debate, I am not a biologist but I think Christophers proposition is fairly valid.

Originally Posted by hivemind

However, the trouble with Hitchens is I think he lets heis temper and fluidity in prose run away with him.

Yes on tepmer..however after listening to him and Stephen Fry debate I must admit that he is an extraordinary orator.

[joe_chicken]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

"We are a poorly evolved....

Poorly evolved for what?

Bullshìt like that is worse than fùcking creationism... I couldn't be bothered reading the rest of his toss.

[Hivemind187]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

Yes on tepmer..however after listening to him and Stephen Fry debate I must admit that he is an extraordinary orator.

Ok, I wont argue the point over evolution, its semantics anyway and only matters to a small number of people.

However, regarding oratory, lol, lets not forget some other fantastic orators such as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Castro, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Snr and the ultimate goober David Icke.

[stevejazzx]

Originally Posted by joe_chicken

Poorly evolved for what?

Bullshìt like that is worse than fùcking creationism... I couldn't be bothered reading the rest of his toss.

Biologists day in and day out tak about how evolution has aided animals to survive in thier respective habitats, so the comment is realitve. Of course we could all get really clever and say haha evolution doesn't have to amount to anything, it just is..but unless you are a great authority on the subject and are prepared to utterly destroy the rest of his arguments then what is the point of posting...is it just to show that you obviously intllectually superior to the rest of us who might be considering his proposition...

[stevejazzx]

Originally Posted by Hivemind187

Ok, I wont argue the point over evolution, its semantics anyway and only matters to a small number of people.

However, regarding oratory, lol, lets not forget some other fantastic orators such as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Castro, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Snr and the ultimate goober David Icke.

Bizare..so what if former dictators were good orators...what does mean, prove do for us in any context? Quite a baffling way to go about discrediting someones abilities. It's like saying vegetarianism is bad becasue hitler was a vegetarian...or that atheism is bad becasue Stalin was atheist. Please think before you type.

[Hivemind187]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

Bizare..so what if former dictators were good orators...what does mean, prove do for us in any context? Quite a baffling way to go about discrediting someones abilities. It's like saying vegetarianism is bad becasue hitler was a vegetarian...or that atheism is bad becasue Stalin was atheist. Please think before you type.

Please note the use of a wide toothed smiley. It was a response meant in good humour.

I was pointing out that you are taking Hitchensons word for it and defending him and your stated basis for doing so was that he is an excellent orator.

A mere parody, a lampoon if you will, hardly worthy of your ire and derision.

[joe_chicken]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

Biologists day in and day out tak about how evolution has aided animals to survive in thier respective habitats, so the comment is realitve.

No idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

Of course we could all get really clever and say haha evolution doesn't have to amount to anything, it just is..but unless you are a great authority on the subject and are prepared to utterly destroy the rest of his arguments then what is the point of posting...

His whole first paragraph is based on the fact that we are "poorly evolved".

That makes me angry. We evolved to suit our environment. Making points about our "small frontal lobes" and then lumping in these comments with comments about religion, using "we" all the time (with an undertone of "them") suggests to some people that he might not be talking about them, just those stupid "poorly evolved" small lobed religious people.

Fùck off Christopher.

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

is it just to show that you obviously intllectually superior to the rest of us who might be considering his proposition...

Accusing me of intellectual snobbery is hypocritical to say the least.

[Tim Robbins]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

Tim..he is exceptionally overbearing at times and his voice can initate in some people an almost instant contempt but I have no doubt that he is a powerful intellectual and authority on the subject at hand, religon.

For me it's nothing to do with his voice.

I have read:
God Delusion , End of Faith (Harris), Why I am not Christian (Russell), Atheism a VSI (Baggini) and Breaking the Spell (Dennett) and Hitchens' God is not Great which is easily the worst.

He's like a fusion of Michael Moore, Kevin Myres and an angry A&A poster atheist who enjoys fire insults at people who disagree him.

(I think an A&A mod would warn Hitchens, if he posted some of his God is not Great rhetoric in this forum.)

Hitchens has a good turn of phrase and rhetorical skill but overall that book is about as intellectual as the Sunday Indo. He has no expertise of Philosophy, Science and Theology.

In 300 or so pages there were two good points, I had n't heard before.

1. An argument that facism was a derivative from Catholism.
2. The Jesuits used to check people's family tree and if they had any Jewish blood they were not allowed be a Jesuit.

The rest of it is full of logical fallacies and just plays to a particular audience of what I would call: "angry atheists" - atheists that are still angry that their parents made them go to mass or the Priest challenged their morals etc.

An intellectual should have the gift of being able to make people think; all Hitchens does in that book is laugh at how some people think.

[stevejazzx]

Originally Posted by joe_chicken

No idea what you're talking about.

You asked poorly evoled for what..I answered. He was speaking in a relative way. he wasn't lecturing on the finite cause and reaction of evolution.

Originally Posted by joechicken

His whole first paragraph is based on the fact that we are "poorly evolved".

That makes me angry. We evolved to suit our environment. Making points about our "small frontal lobes" and then lumping in these comments with comments about religion, using "we" all the time (with an undertone of "them") suggests to some people that he might not be talking about them, just those stupid "poorly evolved" small lobed religious people.

Fùck off Christopher.

Man..you just don't like him which is fair enough.

Originally Posted by joechicken

Accusing me of intellectual snobbery is hypocritical to say the least.

Ok..whatever man.