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

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

stevejazzx wrote:

“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

Wicknight wrote:

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.

wicknight wrote:

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.

wicknight wrote:

....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

Tim Robbins wrote:

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/culturevulture/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

stevejazzx wrote:

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

Hivemind187 wrote:

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.

hivemind wrote:

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

stevejazzx wrote:

"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

stevejazzx wrote:

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

joe_chicken wrote:

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

Hivemind187 wrote:

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

stevejazzx wrote:

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

stevejazzx wrote:

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.

stevejazzx wrote:

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.

stevejazzx wrote:

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

stevejazzx wrote:

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

joe_chicken wrote:

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.

joechicken wrote:

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.

joechicken wrote:

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

Ok..whatever man.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

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.

Dawkins brought up a similar point on the God Delusion (rapidly becoming the tome of budding atheists), as a response to the claim that Hitler was an Atheist where he shows (to those who werent already aware - leavinig cert history class) that Hitler was infact a Catholic.

There are many theories indicating that much of his dislike towards the Jews was either fostered or reinforced by his Catholicism (which is traditionally anti-semetic).

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Dawkins brought up a similar point on the God Delusion (rapidly becoming the tome of budding atheists), as a response to the claim that Hitler was an Atheist where he shows (to those who werent already aware - leavinig cert history class) that Hitler was infact a Catholic.

There are many theories indicating that much of his dislike towards the Jews was either fostered or reinforced by his Catholicism (which is traditionally anti-semetic).

Anti-semitism manifested in most forms of Christianity. Have a look at Martin Luther's:
On the Jews and their Lies.

Dawkins is making a different point w.r.t. to Hitler and Catholism. His main point is that he is trying to rebutt the "atheists can also be lunatics and trouble makers" argument which many theists use referencing Stalin, Hitler etc. when they are rebutting the simplistic "look at all the wars religion causes" argument atheists use.

I don't think Dawkins rebutts it very well either but that's a different topic for a different thread.

The irony is, Hitchens gives out about these sectarian and biggotted attitudes that manifest in many Religions, but he is just propagating his own biggotry and intolerance.

Most critical readers will think "Pot, Kettle and Black".

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

Anti-semitism manifested in most forms of Christianity. Have a look at Martin Luther's:
On the Jews and their Lies.

Dawkins is making a different point w.r.t. to Hitler and Catholism. His main point is that he is trying to rebutt the "atheists can also be lunatics and trouble makers" argument which many theists use referencing Stalin, Hitler etc. when they are rebutting the simplistic "look at all the wars religion causes" argument atheists use.

I don't think Dawkins rebutts it very well either but that's a different topic for a different thread.

The irony is, Hitchens gives out about these sectarian and biggotted attitudes that manifest in many Religions, but he is just propagating his own biggotry and intolerance.

Most critical readers will think "Pot, Kettle and Black".

Sorry, I see what you are saying I misread it the first time.

However I disagree, Dawkins is merely responding to claims that Hitler was an atheist (along with stalin) and they killed loads of people which is the claim that many theologians have made regrarding atheism and a lack of morality (extreme out come being war).

The argument on both sides is flawed because it requires that the root cause of wars be based on faith rather than base greed for wealth, territory etc

However, atheism is not used as a banner to unite one people against another which is, I think, where the issue stems from. Religions are capable of uniting people against a common enemy, notably by claiming that enemy to be "against god" whereas atheism would be uniting people behind a loose association of people who dont believe in something.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

However I disagree, Dawkins is merely responding to claims that Hitler was an atheist (along with stalin) and they killed loads of people which is the claim that many theologians have made regrarding atheism and a lack of morality (extreme out come being war).

You disagree with what:
1. What I said?
2. What Dawkins said?
3. What the theologians say?

The argument on both sides is flawed because it requires that the root cause of wars be based on faith rather than base greed for wealth, territory etc

What do you mean "both sides"?

However, atheism is not used as a banner to unite one people against another which is, I think, where the issue stems from.

Who said it was used as a banner to unite people?
What "issue"?

Religions are capable of uniting people against a common enemy, notably by claiming that enemy to be "against god" whereas atheism would be uniting people behind a loose association of people who dont believe in something.

?

Sorry I can't follow your post. I don't understand your point(s).

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

Dawkins brought up a similar point on the God Delusion (rapidly becoming the tome of budding atheists), as a response to the claim that Hitler was an Atheist where he shows (to those who werent already aware - leavinig cert history class) that Hitler was infact a Catholic.

There are many theories indicating that much of his dislike towards the Jews was either fostered or reinforced by his Catholicism (which is traditionally anti-semetic).

Hitler was a Catholic in the same sense that most of the posters on the A&A board are Catholic. He was baptised and raised in Catholicism as a child, but explicitly rejected it in later years.

In the early years of Nazism Hitler made a few positive references to Christianity in order to appease his critics, but as his grip on power became stronger he derided Christianity both in private and in public.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Hitler was a Catholic in the same sense that most of the posters on the A&A board are Catholic. He was baptised and raised in Catholicism as a child, but explicitly rejected it in later years.

In the early years of Nazism Hitler made a few positive references to Christianity in order to appease his critics, but as his grip on power became stronger he derided Christianity both in private and in public.

"Christianity causes violence" is always flawed anyway because the Christian can just reply, the Christian doctrine is more about peace and love than violence, therefore so and so isn't a real Christian.

The "political derivatives of religion causes violence" might be a better argument but one could easily apply that also to any edifice that has political derivatives for example nationalism.

These silly atheism arguments omit these points and are a kin to the logical fallacy: act of omission.

No society has invented a system whereby violence, murder, rape etc. don't exist.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Hitler was a Catholic in the same sense that most of the posters on the A&A board are Catholic. He was baptised and raised in Catholicism as a child, but explicitly rejected it in later years.

In the early years of Nazism Hitler made a few positive references to Christianity in order to appease his critics, but as his grip on power became stronger he derided Christianity both in private and in public.

As far as I'm aware there is pretty strong evidence for the idea that Hitler believe in some form of Christian God right up to the point where he shot himself in the head (presumably believing that he was heading to meet him)

Of course what form that belief took I've no idea. I do agree that it is unfair to classify Hitler as a "Catholic", I would imagine Hitler had his own original idea of religion. He doesn't strike me as someone who would follow some one else's teachings.

Red Hand

As homework this evening, I want everyone to read Mein Kampf.:D

Meh, from the original post, this guy seems a bit wishy washy

PDN

Some reviews of "God is Not Great":

Michael Skapinker (Financial Times) wrote:

The problem with Hitchens’ thesis that religion poisons everything is how to explain those who use it to do good. How does Hitchens account for Martin Luther King? Here’s how: King was not really a Christian. Really? Well, at no point did King suggest that those who reviled him would be punished in this world or the next. 'In no real as opposed to nominal sense, then, was he a Christian.' Let’s leave aside the possibility that King’s lack of interest in revenge came from the Gospels … What of godless people who do evil? … Hitchens says that Stalin understood his people’s religious superstitions and mimicked them. So King wasn’t really religious and Stalin was. If that sort of intellectual and moral shabbiness is to your taste, this book should be too.

Mary Grabar wrote:

Best-selling atheist authors are capitalizing on a wave of ignorance and stupidity. The latest offering, God Is Not Great, comes from a bon vivant with a British accent.

To be sure, Christian fundamentalists and literalists have given Christopher Hitchens much to work with. For example, Memorial Day saw the opening of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where Genesis comes alive with Adam and Eve alongside animatronic dinosaurs 6,000 years ago. More of God's country in Tennessee is slated for despoliation with a theme park to be called Bible Park USA.

While the theme park and museum builders have sincere intentions, I wish they'd read some books. And I'm talking about more than the Bible.

Consider the great works of literature written by Christian authors. Though I saw these authors mocked in graduate school, the force of their ideas prevails. Their wisdom and humanity contrasted sharply with the nonsensical nihilism put out by trendy authors.

Reading Milton led me back to the Bible. Shakespeare revealed the evil of atheism through characters like Iago. Dostoyevsky exposed the evils of pride and self-devised "justice."

How odd, then, for Hitchens to invoke literature as he does:

"We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books."

But Hitchens must be banking on a readership that has not read Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky. These Christian authors dramatized the themes and stories of the holy book that Hitchens disparages.

Wikipedia wrote:

Responding to Hitchens' statement that "all attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule," Peter Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution quotes a palentologist that Hitchens himself commended--Stephen Jay Gould. After a survey showed half of all scientists are religious, Gould said that "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism." For his part, Ross Douthat remarked that "Hitchens's argument proceeds principally by anecdote, and at his best he is as convincing as that particular style allows, which is to say not terribly."

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Hitler was a Catholic in the same sense that most of the posters on the A&A board are Catholic. He was baptised and raised in Catholicism as a child, but explicitly rejected it in later years.

In the early years of Nazism Hitler made a few positive references to Christianity in order to appease his critics, but as his grip on power became stronger he derided Christianity both in private and in public.

Actually you are wrong.

Hitler referred many times to Germany as Christian state and his obsession with the occult stemmed from a Judeo Christian understanding of the same.

From studying the nutter you realise that he was not merely a crank but a zealot who justified his actions through religion, philosophy, politics and socialism. Religion may not have caused the things he did but he used it like he used everything else in his life, to gain power.

Enyeez

I somewhat agree with the topic, BUT!, if we didn't have religion, we'd be hating over something else, boxers or briefs.

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

You disagree with what:
1. What I said?
2. What Dawkins said?
3. What the theologians say?

What do you mean "both sides"?

Who said it was used as a banner to unite people?
What "issue"?

I disagree with your critique that Dawkins does not rebutt the arguement well. He makes a perfectly sensible argument against the position that atheisms lack of religious guidelines lead to moral degeneracy and this was the cause of wars and ethnic cleansing.

My point regarding both "sides" is the side claiming religion causes wars and the side that says atheism causes wars (genocide, ethnic cleansing insert your moral outrage of choice). Both arguments are flawed because they presuppose the wrong driving force behind such atrocities.

I mentioned banners as a methaphor, something that unites people, "we are all this particular thing that you arent so we can kill you" ... you have seen banners before right?

However, I would point out that no atheist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings in the name of a god who, for all intents and purpses, should be able to wipe out unbelievers with a mere thought.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

Actually you are wrong.

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

Zombrex

Enyeez wrote:

I somewhat agree with the topic, BUT!, if we didn't have religion, we'd be hating over something else, boxers or briefs.

This is a common charge leveled at the anti-religion crowd (of which I'm a member).

But would we really? Boxers or Briefs won't promise you eternal afterlife, it doesn't tell you that you are special and loved from a supernatural deity, it won't convince you that you are the chosen people.

I think people seem to underestimate quite how powerful a hold religion has on the lives of people because it claims to offer so much that nothing else can.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

I wont deny that.

Trouble is that his religious position was deeply confusing.

He defintiely believed in a god that was actively taking part in life itself rather than a detached spirit.

However, as i pointed out, I refered to Hitler in the first place merel as a great orator and nothing else. This is getting WAY off topic.

Dades

Yeah, maybe leave Adolf out of it.
We could all trawl Google and find Hitler quotes suggesting he was/wasn't a Christian.

I wouldn't have said religion is the main cause of hatred - that would be xenophobia pure and simple.
But no doubt it is a widely used excuse.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

I disagree with your critique that Dawkins does not rebutt the arguement well. He makes a perfectly sensible argument against the position that atheisms lack of religious guidelines lead to moral degeneracy and this was the cause of wars and ethnic cleansing.

The initial argument is quite specific about Hitler and Stalin. It's not a general argument which is what you have gone off on a tangent on.

My point regarding both "sides" is the side claiming religion causes wars and the side that says atheism causes wars (genocide, ethnic cleansing insert your moral outrage of choice). Both arguments are flawed because they presuppose the wrong driving force behind such atrocities.

I can't follow you.
You try to clarify "both sides" by focussing on "the" side. Logically makes nosense.

I mentioned banners as a methaphor, something that unites people, "we are all this particular thing that you arent so we can kill you" ... you have seen banners before right?

What's the relevance?

However, I would point out that no atheist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings in the name of a god who, for all intents and purpses, should be able to wipe out unbelievers with a mere thought.

Sorry I can't follow any of your point(s).
There's no direction, just a few random comments about atheism.
What are you trying to argue?
Can you try to be more specific?
Pick a specific point to argue or rebutt. Number them if you have more than one. Right now, I can't follow you.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

Great posts PDN. Liked the Hitchens one too.

ron_darrell

I don't think it's a matter of opinion whether Hitler was a Christian or not. Religion of any kind is incompatible with the ideals of Fascism. Fascism creates a cult leader who for want of a better word becomes god to his people. He is the epitome of what his people represent and steps are taken to make him seem, all-knowing and all-powerful. To then have the idea that this 'god' worships another would undermine his power. And the very idea, from an anti-semitics point of view, of the son of god being a Jew would be absolutely abhorrent.

That said Hitler and the SS experimented with creating a 'German' religion based on the pagan germanic/celtic cults of the pre-christian era adapted to suit their own ends. In fact a great deal of the archeological work done by the Nazis in the late 20's and early 30's was to prove that the German people were the original people (the Aryans) undiluted by mixture with other races and to discover the original religion of these people. The end aim of the discovery was to show the lineage of Hitler back to the gods of these people again reinforcing his importance.

Personally, I'm atheist however I can understand the importance of religion in the lives of others. Religion of itself is neither good or bad. Most world religions teach of peace and love and understanding. By the same token, many wars have been fought in the name of these religions. A leader will look for that force which solidifies his people behind him. The aim of most hatred and war is either power, land or money. Religion only comes into it to get your people to decide to die for you so that you can get the power, land or money without thinking 'what's in this for me'.

As for the original point, I personally find when people talk in broad brush strokes or 'small frontal lobes' and 'underevolved mammals' they are basically making the point that we could be more than we are. Which is tosh. We are what we are. We may get 'better' (whatever that means) but we may get 'worse' (again a very relative term) but chances are we'll stay the same. Our brains, our minds are not the same as other animals and we need religion (as a species but not as individuals) to help us get through the night to find the next day. Would we really carry on if we thought that this is all there is? What would be the point?

-RD

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Yeah, maybe leave Adolf out of it.
We could all trawl Google and find Hitler quotes suggesting he was/wasn't a Christian.

Whatever about Hitler and Stalin, Mao was certainly personally an atheist, and he was probably the biggest killer of the three.

It's entirely irrelevant, though, because we have no evidence that they committed their crimes because of their atheism, or on behalf of atheism (how would that even work?) - or indeed, in any other cause than their own monstrous egos.

The Christian might well argue that they would have not have done what they did had they been good Christians - to which the obvious reply is that they wouldn't have done what they did if they had been good people, no matter their religion or lack of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

The Christian might well argue that they would have not have done what they did had they been good Christians - to which the obvious reply is that they wouldn't have done what they did if they had been good people, no matter their religion or lack of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Corollary:
anyone who is an asshole and is religious will be an asshole without their religion.

Looks like the Stalin, Hitler and "Look what your religion has done" arguments are all moot.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Corollary:
anyone who is an asshole and is religious will be an asshole without their religion.

Looks like the Stalin, Hitler and "Look what your religion has done" arguments are all moot.

I'd say so...

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

say Christopher Hitchens

To every complex problem there is an answer which is simple, obvious, and wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

The initial argument is quite specific about Hitler and Stalin. It's not a general argument which is what you have gone off on a tangent on.

No the original argument was not about Hitler or Stalin (nor Bush, Reagan or any others). I was pointing out that skilled oratory alone does not make anyone right.

The rest of your points are deliberatly obtuse.

I was arguing simply that to make the claim that religion causes war is erroneous because it presupposes that religion is the direct cause of war rather than economic or social concerns that rech no further than greed, ego and envy.

Exactly the same point can be made when confronted with the argument that atheism, lacking in a religious structure to define ones morals, leads to moral degeneration which in turn leads to horrors like those perpetrated under Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot.

The core of my argument was that both accusations, which have been levelled by various people at either side (side meaning either theism or atheism) are characteristically nonssense and should never be brought up because they contain the logical flaws obvious by now.

In other words, I was agreeing with your poisition but saying it differently.

My other statements should be obvious enough.

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

No the original argument was not about Hitler or Stalin (nor Bush, Reagan or any others). I was pointing out that skilled oratory alone does not make anyone right.

The rest of your points are deliberatly obtuse.

I was arguing simply that to make the claim that religion causes war is erroneous because it presupposes that religion is the direct cause of war rather than economic or social concerns that rech no further than greed, ego and envy.

Exactly the same point can be made when confronted with the argument that atheism, lacking in a religious structure to define ones morals, leads to moral degeneration which in turn leads to horrors like those perpetrated under Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot.

The core of my argument was that both accusations, which have been levelled by various people at either side (side meaning either theism or atheism) are characteristically nonssense and should never be brought up because they contain the logical flaws obvious by now.

In other words, I was agreeing with your poisition but saying it differently.

My other statements should be obvious enough.

Sorry I can't follow your posts, points.
Maybe others can.
Good luck.
Tim.

solas

thats just silly...and complicated. Surely if men created religion then men are to blame. Besides, someone name me a war which a woman started. Men like fighting, preservation of the species and all that. its that straight forward.

solas

men are quite stupid though.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Corollary:
anyone who is an asshole and is religious will be an asshole without their religion.

Looks like the Stalin, Hitler and "Look what your religion has done" arguments are all moot.

People tend to miss the point about these "look what your religion has done" arguments. It is not about the leaders per say, it is the issue of why so many people follow them.

Society will always produce psychopathic monsters.

The central issue is why to people, often large groups of people who would be considered moral, follow these people to often devastating ends.

It is at this point that I point the finger of blame at religion, and more generally religion like concepts such as fundamentalist nationalism or communism, not for producing the monsters but for the fact that so many people follow them.

Zombrex

solas wrote:

men are quite stupid though.

true ... we gave women the vote for a start ...

solas

why women don't start wars wrote:

WOMEN do not avoid fighting because they are dainty or scared, but because they have a greater stake than men in staying alive to rear their offspring. Women compete with each other just as tenaciously as men, but with a stealth and subtlety that reduces their chances of being killed or injured, says Anne Campbell of the department of psychology at the University of Durham.

Across almost all cultures and nationalities, men have a much smaller role than women in rearing children. "Males go for quantity of children rather than quality of care for offspring, which means that the parental investment of women is much greater," says Campbell. And unlike men, who can't be sure that their children have not been fathered on the sly by other men, women can always be certain that half an offspring's genes are theirs.

Men are motivated to remove any genetic threats to their own pool, wheras women are motivated to preserve life.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

true ... we gave women the vote for a start ...

The sort of comment that's distinguished by having a blast radius....

Wicknight wrote:

People tend to miss the point about these "look what your religion has done" arguments. It is not about the leaders per say, it is the issue of why so many people follow them.

Society will always produce psychopathic monsters.

The central issue is why to people, often large groups of people who would be considered moral, follow these people to often devastating ends.

It is at this point that I point the finger of blame at religion, and more generally religion like concepts such as fundamentalist nationalism or communism, not for producing the monsters but for the fact that so many people follow them.

Which is to say all "group" concepts. Unfortunately, that collapses the argument down into a tautology:

1. wars are conflicts between groups
2. groups are the cause of wars

Humanity is not really an individualistic species (a few individuals excepted). Would you honestly consider it proven that religious grouping is more productive of actual deaths (as a proxy measure for hate) than national or ideological groupings?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sorry I can't follow your posts, points.
Maybe others can.
Good luck.
Tim.

Uh-huh.

Anyway, your point regarding Dawkins is incorrect.

The point waas made in the God Delusion that it is believed my many theists that atheism, as a philosophy, is bereft of morality because to their minds, morality is absolute and stems (generally) from God.

Dawkins challenges this first pointing out that atheism is not responsible for the atrocities comitted by Stalin (who was the example of a nasty Atheist given) or Hitler (who was also mentioned and who belief structure is questionable) because to suggest that they did such things as a result of their atheism (thus having no moral compass or whatever) is to presuppose that such things are born of atheism or cannot exist without atheism. Which is nonsense.

Secondly he points out that morality, far rom being an absolute quantity, is in fact inherent to humans as a base concept (killing is other humans is abhorent, stealing makes others feel bad etc) and constructed by humans thereafter to meet societal or utterly foolish theological constraints.

This, would appear to be a solid arguement.

PDN

solas wrote:

Besides, someone name me a war which a woman started.

The Falklands War, started by Margaret Thatcher.
Queen Elizabeth I provoked war by authorising pirate raids against Spanish bullion ships in peacetime.
Catherine the Great started the first Russo-Turkish War. She also invaded Sweden.
Indira Gandhi started a war with Pakistan.
Bloody Mary got England into a disastrous war with France.
Tzu Hsi started the Boxer Rebellion.
Joan of Arc hyped the French up to fight a war.
Deborah, in the book of Judges, both started and led the Israelites in a war of liberation.
Nana Yaa Asantewaa led the Ashanti in a war against the British in Ghana.
Queen Zenobia, ruler of Palmyra, started a war against Rome.
Queen Boadicea, led the ancient Britons in a war against the Romans.

God preserve us from women rulers!

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

The Falklands War, started by Margaret Thatcher.
Queen Elizabeth I provoked war by authorising pirate raids against Spanish bullion ships in peacetime.
Catherine the Great started the first Russo-Turkish War. She also invaded Sweden.
Indira Gandhi started a war with Pakistan.
Bloody Mary got England into a disastrous war with France.
Tzu Hsi started the Boxer Rebellion.
Joan of Arc hyped the French up to fight a war.
Deborah, in the book of Judges, both started and led the Israelites in a war of liberation.
Nana Yaa Asantewaa led the Ashanti in a war against the British in Ghana.
Queen Zenobia, ruler of Palmyra, started a war against Rome.
Queen Boadicea, led the ancient Britons in a war against the Romans.

God preserve us from women rulers!

lol,

Not suprised the Iron Lady topped the list, but I thought it started when the argies landed?

(edit: because I clicked the wrong part of the screen)

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The Falklands War, started by Margaret Thatcher.
Queen Elizabeth I provoked war by authorising pirate raids against Spanish bullion ships in peacetime.
Catherine the Great started the first Russo-Turkish War. She also invaded Sweden.
Indira Gandhi started a war with Pakistan.
Bloody Mary got England into a disastrous war with France.
Tzu Hsi started the Boxer Rebellion.
Joan of Arc hyped the French up to fight a war.
Deborah, in the book of Judges, both started and led the Israelites in a war of liberation.
Nana Yaa Asantewaa led the Ashanti in a war against the British in Ghana.
Queen Zenobia, ruler of Palmyra, started a war against Rome.
Queen Boadicea, led the ancient Britons in a war against the Romans.

God preserve us from women rulers!

Ah, the monstrous regiment of women...

cordially,
Scofflaw

solas

PDN wrote:

The Falklands War, started by Margaret Thatcher.

I'm pretty sure she was a man. But thanks for highlighting some wars which weren't started on a religious bias.

Queen Elizabeth I provoked war by authorising pirate raids against Spanish bullion ships in peacetime.
Catherine the Great started the first Russo-Turkish War. She also invaded Sweden.

I'm wonder how many male advisors helped plan and execute them.

Indira Gandhi started a war with Pakistan.

wasn't india already emedded in quite a lot of upheaval and a fight for independance?

Bloody Mary got England into a disastrous war with France.
Tzu Hsi started the Boxer Rebellion.
Joan of Arc hyped the French up to fight a war.
Deborah, in the book of Judges, both started and led the Israelites in a war of liberation.
Nana Yaa Asantewaa led the Ashanti in a war against the British in Ghana.
Queen Zenobia, ruler of Palmyra, started a war against Rome.
Queen Boadicea, led the ancient Britons in a war against the Romans.

God preserve us from women rulers!

would be a pain in the arse to go through them one by one and I don't want to have to defend royalist imperialist along the way. In most scenarios though, there was a history of unrest anyway and leading someone to vistory isn't the same as starting a war
Joan of Arc didn't start a war for instance, she fought in a war that had already consumed much of france.

Scofflaw

solas wrote:

But thanks for highlighting some wars which weren't started on a religious bias.

What, like the first and second world wars?

mystified,
Scofflaw