Slashdot Mirror
Christopher Hitchens Dies At 62
An anonymous reader sends this quote from the NY Times:
"Christopher Hitchens, a slashing polemicist in the tradition of Thomas Paine and George Orwell who trained his sights on targets as various as Henry Kissinger, the British monarchy and Mother Teresa, wrote a best-seller attacking religious belief, and dismayed his former comrades on the left by enthusiastically supporting the American-led war in Iraq, died Thursday at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He was 62. He took pains to emphasize that he had not revised his position on atheism, articulated in his best-selling 2007 book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, although he did express amused appreciation at the hope, among some concerned Christians, that he might undergo a late-life conversion. Mr. Hitchens's latest collection of writings, Arguably: Essays, published this year, has been a best-seller and ranked among the top 10 books of 2011 by The New York Times Book Review."
It's just that western religions tend to be. Christianity especially have been used for lots of bad, and has always been used to control other people and is manipulative and evil by design. It also tries to hinder people's thinking, and tries to tell people how everything is without anyone needing to think.
In comparison, Theravada Buddhism is almost completely different. It promotes the idea of people thinking themselves and not just accepting what someone else tells them to. It doesn't believe in some imaginary persons or miracles - Buddha has actually lived, and isn't viewed as some kind of more than a human. It also teaches you to respect other people and in karmas law. The whole religion isn't so much an religion but good guidelines for life.
There's lots of bad with religions, but most of it comes from Christianity and western world.
... whether or not he was right.
Among Greeks, probably best known for one of his less-blockbuster books, 1997's The Parthenon Marbles: The Case for Reunification .
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well he had kids, so not exactly...
When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer.
Any religion can, and will, be perverted by its followers so they can do whatever they wanted in the first place.
If you think that Buddhism has never been misused to do horrible things, you haven't studied much history, or even paid much attention to world news.
I remember a reviewer observing that Christopher Hitchens writes books faster than most people read. I suspect that was true.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
I found it surprising that he was so adamant about his smoking and drinking (even boasting it), being an atheist. One would expect an atheist taking more serious approach to his health.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Naturally Deselected by his own DNA.
A fitting end.
Not really. He lived long enough to reproduce.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Marriage_and_children
To quote Farscape, specifically Noranti answering the question "Do religions hate each other where you come from?":
"Oh, good heavens no. Religions are grand lofty ideals. Religious followers, now that's another story."
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
You are so right...atheism was such a small part of what he wrote and spoke about. It certainly was the topic that sold tickets and books, but he commented and wrote about nearly every topic related to culture and civilization. Love him or hate him, he was always interesting and thought-provoking.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Rest in peace.
I can't say I always agreed with him, but I will miss the now silent articles, fearsome intellect, and his wit and insight. And I am quite sure those who know him intimately will personally feel that the world has lost a very bright light too early.
Condolences to his family.
We`re all equal
But seriously, the world has last a great writer and a great thinker. It seems that 2011 has been a year where we've lost a lot more than we've gained.
I've always been a fan of Hitch's writings on filesystems, UX, kernel internals, GNOME vs. KDE etc. Oh no, he never wrote anything on those subjects did he? So why on earth is he being given an article on /. ? Oh, because he's a leading atheist.
When Pratchett and Pullman die, feel free; they at least are part of geek culture.
Soulskill, you are advancing your political and world views at the expense of slashdot's quality.
Also as he would have wanted: Twitter allegedly removes #GodIsNotGreat from trending topics after the Christian contingent erupts.
Idiocy fell on his watch.
We all know that Hitch
was nobody's bitch,
so let's thank him by raising a scotch.
Skeptical Limericks
Christopher Hitchens, you were a gentleman and a scholar. You will be missed dearly.
You were a rare man. Thank you.
Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling, but I'll assume serious. Are you implying that a theist who believes in an afterlife would be more cavalier with their physical health since they consider life on Earth as merely a speed bump on the trip to eternal salvation? I know that holds true for many evangelicals with regard to our natural resources and the health of the planet (("F**k the earth, god gave it to us to rape and pillage so don't complain to me about my Hummer!"), but most religious people I know are generally not smokers and drinkers.
Why would an atheist avoid physical (guilty) pleasures like drinking or smoking? Would a longer, more boring life be preferable to a shorter, exciting, experience-filled existence? I would say the more surprising thing about the fact that he drank and smoked is that he is knowledgeable about the scientific body of evidence related to the detrimental health effects. He made an informed decision to spend what he knew was a finite existence doing things that gave him pleasure rather than squandering that time twiddling his thumbs.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
Probably the most insightful post that will appear on this topic of pure flamebait. Absolutely agree with you, sir.
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
Well, that depends a lot on whether or not you include religious leaders who tell believers what to do as part of the religion itself. It's not particularly important whether those leaders are still alive today or they died hundreds of years ago.
I never knew him; He won't be missed by me, but I do appreciate his life as much as any other's. Through living he gave a bit of this Universe's chaos a reason for existing, and I'd say on the whole his was a net gain against entropy.
I'm not one who needs the insight of others to point out flaws in religions. As an Atheist myself I've studied many religions and take note of their past cultural significance -- The first societies needed laws (which were born as part of religious beliefs), and many beliefs show quite a bit of imagination on the part of their collective creators.
Although I don't actively attempt to sway the beliefs of others or applaud those who do so, I suppose the end of the chemical reaction known as Christopher Hitchens deserves a moment of silence during which I'll think of my own mortality, both his and my own contributions to society, and extract from his passing a bit of urgency and resolve to complete my own socially beneficial free software projects.
Since TFS reads like an advertisement perhaps afterwards I'll buy one of his works.
Did he make a last minute bet?
people mention bombing abortion clinics, beating up gays, sorry how many times does that happen out of 2 billion Christians, maybe it more of a problem with American's then Christian's, as that type of behaviour does tend to be US centric.
The majority of Christian's i have met are actually nice people, they help the homeless, they do a lot of chariabtle work, of course there are a lot of people who proclaimed to be religious and aren't nice, but that's like saying you met an arsehole who work for starbucks, so by definition all Starbucks employees are arsehole's.
On slashdot you expect a higher level of discussion, but it's quiet funny how when you mention religion it descends into bigotry and prejudice. Again im not religious but i have no major problem with Christianity, it basic doctrines are right, i.e be nice to people, dont murder people.
People seem to forget the abolition of slavery, the fall of Communism, many of the social right's w have today where from Christian organization's in the late 19th and 20th centuries.
Rest in peace, Christopher. Your agile mind, your books, and your intolerance of idiocy will always stay in our memory.
Hitchen's criticisms of all religions primarily boils down to their impacts as a whole to large portions of society, and how the larger defined body of Buddhism in the world is just as bad as Christianity. There are so called Buddhist sects are just as intolerant and violent as Christian ones, and ask their followers to cast off thought and reason and simply listen to their teachings. It's this abandoning of reason that's the problem with religion, and while one might define that for an individual person religion was good... for example, Jesus was a good guy who did good things and was better for his beliefs... but for society as a whole, religion has had negative impacts and is used for evil and hypocritical purposes. The Abrahamic religions do this far more efficiently than Hinduism and Buddhism but the latter are not, as a whole, innocent religions.
And that's not to mention the supernatural. Emphasizing the supernatural over reason is immediately a problem because it leads to be people not questioning the supernatural and simply accepting it.
I could find you a sect of Christianity that is equivalent to Theravada Buddhism, but there is a fine line between philosophy and religion. There's also a fine line between humanism and a well thought out philosophy that emphasizes reason. Where you want to draw the line is another debate entirely, but using Theravada Buddhism as a way to counter Hitchen's argument about religion is equivalent to using an anecdote to counteract statistical evidence. Invariable, as religions grow and spread they are twisted and used for evil and force people to abandon reason. Some smaller religions and philosophies emphasize reason, but the moment you put reason below anything else, you open up people to the principle that at some point, they are allowed to stop thinking for themselves.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
The problem is not the followers, is the leaders
Exactly. Modern religion is a fairy tale designed to make people think that their lives hold meaning beyond what they do with them. That's there's some kind of cosmic point to it all.
Honestly, if it helps you get through life, more power to you. I've seen religious belief, however misguided I may think it is, help get my family members through too many hard times for me to tell people that *they* shouldn't believe, as long as they don't expect me to.
And if all of that mumbo-jumbo is required to make you act like a better person to your fellow man, that's kind of sad, but it's far better than *not* being a moral person.
Religious faith isn't what causes the bad effects of religion. Misguided belief in failed ideologies does that. Too many people have killed each other for nationalism or communism or racism to claim that religion is the source of most of our problems. In its dangerous, organized form it's just an expression of the same basic human problems as every other -ism.
... as per today's Cyanide and Happiness comic.
This was the passing of a brilliant man, but why is it an article on slashdot? I am unaware of anything Christopher Hitchens wrote that was directly related to any of the subjects that slashdot usually covers.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Sure Hitchens made a name for himself for his efforts against religion. But those pale in comparison to his greater achievement: helping to bring the world the Iraq war.
I will always remember the steadfastly careerist way Hitchens reached across the political divide to join hands with the neocons in the Bush administration to boldly hype up false intelligence to make the war in Iraq a reality. Thanks to Hitchens the Iraqi people no longer live in fear of Saddam Hussein's regime. Now they live in fear of torture and death at the hands of Iraqi government and/or various politico-religious militias. Always better when a government monopoly is replaced by a competitive market, eh?
The war also removed the burden of a functioning electrical grid or sanitation systems – facilities that would be superfluous for the 6% of the population, or 2 million Iraqis, who have been internally displaced by the war.
None of this would have been possible without the efforts of pro-war propagandists like Christopher Hitchens. I hope for his sake, that he's right and there is no god.
Christopher Hitchens nerd factor was about zero.
Is like throwing pearls before swine.
Ditto politics.
This is supposed to be a TECH forum. Not a poo-throwing party.
His stance on God I didn't have a problem with, but his calling for war filled me with contempt for him.Yes, it is extremely brave to call for war from behind a keyboard, and to send those with lots of life left in them to die for an old f*ck like him. Even more so since this is all the life we have. Let keyboard warmongers like this cowardly f*ck go into war and die first, and this world might be a more peaceful place. Would it be ironic, since I am an atheist as well, to protest his funeral with signs that say: "God hates warmongers"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What about when committing evil is directly following a tenet of the religion?
In that case, only cafeteria followers of a religion who pick and choose what to obey can avoid committing evil acts.
Not promoting supernaturalism?
So, all that stuff in the various Mahayanna sutras the Zen monks chant from was hard core physical reality, huh?
I thought the whole point of Zen was that enlightenment could not be an intellectual process and had to be obtained by mystical insight attained through practice and meditation.
You need to learn more about Buddhism and its teachings rather than just some distilled pop culture view of it.
(Not dissing Zen, just dissing misunderstanding.)
If you even bothered to read the summary, the answer was "no." And your hope isn't for his sake: it's really for yours -- the fact that somebody else believes in your fantasy serves only to bolster your belief.
Additionally, have a look at this.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
This is sad news, as an atheist and a fan of Hitchens I mourn the loss of a cultural warrior and an icon of free thought and progress. Christopher Hitchens will be missed.
subject says it all. I know that that the creator he did not believe in still loved him.
...it seems the tone of religious arguments on Slashdot shifts dramatically as the US wakes up.
Really, the vast majority of fervent Christians start popping out of the woodwork here as morning rolls around in the Land of the Free.
It's not your metaphysics, it's that you're an asshole. The difference should be clear.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And not insightful...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
All I can do is thank him for his insightful, clever work. He and the rest of the “horsemen” have opened the floodgates of new ideas to a continent thirsty for a voice of reason and honesty. His brilliance and eloquence has brought many of us closet atheists into the open, willing to challenge the ignorance of tribal dogma rampant in this Country. It would have been an incredible evening to spend a couple hours with him chatting over a scotch.
Until he got cancer. Sorry anyone gets cancer, but I wonder if he "found god" before he passed away. For his sake, I hope he made peace with god.
Why would he "make peace" with something he didn't believe in? On top of that, which god do you mean?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Whether or not you profess belief in God, a higher power, the afterlife, etc; you still have to admit Hitchens brilliance and balls. He had both in great abundance.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Speaking of metaphors, I'm going to mix a special one, just for you.
You are using a broad brush to paint the kettle black. (* may or may not be applicable - meditation may help) /. denizens on religion resemble this:
-------------
I would argue that the attitude of many
First, If you make extraordinary claims, you should present extraordinary evidence - Can you present any evidence that I am not my body, that my thoughts and feelings are not a bag of chemicals? (Ref: antidepressants)
Second, if more religious people ACTUALLY interpreted the texts/teaching of their religions as metaphors, the world would be a better place. We can see right through the stories, and we can also see "godly" folks adopting stupid positions based on these same texts/teachings. Religions may emphasize their kinder, softer side, but followers will do almost anything in the name of their god. There's the saying "I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians" that pretty much sums it up. Even different sects of Buddhists engage in name-calling and worse in the name of their religion.
Third: We see religion as a set of memes that prey on weaknesses in the human mind. We pay attention to the history of religion: how they get started (Ref: LDS, Scientology, ), split/evolve (Ref: Judeo/Christianity) and die (Ref: Mithra, Apollonius of Tyana - veeeerrrry interesting) and we note the impressive similarities between them and other religions. The major difference: some have been around longer than others.
Merry Christmas, or whatever it is that floats your ark.
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
and the rest of his inbred band of idiots in 3,2,1.....
Serves those commies right, with their sinister political beliefs.
Atheism requires no less faith then deism.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
I'm an evangelical, and I'll miss his wit, writing talents, intelligent disagreement, and impatience for those who lack the courage to represent their own beliefs honestly.
Are you representative of your religion? Are you really the result of a religious upbringing? So much for any care or compassion for someone who's died. I'm actually pretty disgusted by your comment.
Religion is about one idea - YOU ARE NOT YOUR BODY. Your thoughts and feelings and desires and goals are not a bag of chemicals. Life is a separate source of energy from the physical manifestation. Your existence does not begin and end with the growth of a toenail, or a curly hair, or the firing of a synapse. Life is not a physical force, but it can act on physical forces, and can be tangentially measured in physical means.
Now all you need is some evidence.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Name Two Wicked Actions That Were Committed In The Name of Eradicating Religion by Atheist. You may have points against religion in general, but because of your tone you're incapable of seeing that you are as evil as them. Your logic will simply lead you down the same path it does them. Which is, I'm better then them therefore they are less then me. It is dehumanizing logic and is the actual source of the evil that religious people put against others to justify their actions. Atheism isn't immune to committing atrocities. They just have the advantage of saying "they don't represent me". Well if you can do that then the Catholic who has to put up with people hatting him because of some perverted priests molested someone can use the same logic. Which if that's permitted then your entire argument falls to pieces.
Religious faith isn't what causes the bad effects of religion. Misguided belief in failed ideologies does that.
The only way to avoid the bad effects of religion is to avoid misguided belief. The only way to avoid misguided belief is to support your beliefs with evidence. This is inconsistent with faith, which is belief without evidence.
It's not "religious faith" that's bad, it's just faith that's bad.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
I'll take you literally with the "just about anything else" part.
So National Socialism or Stalinist Communism really is a neutral concept, and it can be used for good or evil? The credit and blame should exclusively go to the respective followers, and nothing whatsoever is wrong about these ideas themselves?
You're crazy.
Religions are evil. People acting out their worst parts are really evil, but those bad parts are in there, whether or not people act them out. And as long as they are in there, knowing what we know about human nature, someone will act on them.
You can't seriously claim that a book with explicit instructions for murder is not evil in this time and culture. I don't care what good parts it has, just like working in a daycare center and giving alms to the poor doesn't and shouldn't protect you from being thrown in jails if you commit a crime.
There's instructions for murder right there in all the major holy books, and no amount of bullshit talk does away with it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I loathed and despised Hitchens.
But, on his behalf,
Fuck of and die you piece of shit.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Hitchens: God does not exist!
God: Hitchens does not exist!
What a smarmy, self-righteous, nasty thing to say. I know you may even think that you are being nice, but you are really only being astonishingly disrespectful.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Hitchens dies and goes to heaven. He feels something is wrong, comes to a heavenly pond and looks down at his reflection in the water. To his horror he finds his body in fur, fingers instead of his toes, a tail and a monkey face!!!! :-)
So he looks up and sees Christ walking through heaven. Hitchens runs up to him and screams, "How is that? Does it not say in the bible: "God created man in his own image""?
And Christ answers: "I warned you: [Matthew 9:29] "Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you."
Thor, for sure. Valhalla > Heaven
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
National Socialism and Stalinist Communism aren't inherently evil, they're both examples of rulers implementing policies vastly different then the official party line.
Have you ever actually looked at the politics that the National Socialists presented before they gained power?
Most high-profile people who are harshly critical of religion tend to avoid or soften criticism of Islam. It's easy to slam Christians and get away with it, but the Muslims can and do kill those who offend them. As we've seen, they'll call for murder and violently riot just over a drawing. Most atheists aren't willing to back up their position with their lives.
Hitchens, however, did not discriminate. He pulled no punches when it came to Islam.
A religion IS the product of it's believers. And most religions state not to follow other religion but their one true religion; which is hatred of other religions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you are living under the delusion of Pascals wager, any God worth its meat would know that, and burn you in hell for living in that frame of mind anyway, so what would be the point? And a God doing that wouldn't be worth worshiping to begin with, etc, etc.
My religion is life.
I worship being good. (an verb of action, not a deity)
You take old stories about voices from burning bushes seriously? Wow.
If your deity is defined as all good, and he demands you purposely kill innocent unbelievers, something most in the West could consider evil, then the evil is redefined as good since the act was by the all-good deity's command.
This is a bit different than a religion demanding that you not kill an unborn child, or not allowing someone to die when he himself so desires.
Also his metaphysics,.
Couple with his completely lack of understanding of natural selection.
can deal with assholes who are correct in their premise n a subject. factually wrong people who use the incorrect statements as an excuse to be an asshole, that is irritating.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is a thread about -Hitchens-, right?
I think something about "can dish it out" comes into play here...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Going to miss the guy, among surely hundreds of intellectual geniuses of time immemorial, he joins the great ones with Socrates, Russell, and the likes.
"Do, or do not. There is no try." -Yoda.
I understand it fully. I also understand your psychological process of falsely equivocating for yourself that the survival of -information- would mean the survival of any particular biological entity, to coddle your feelings with respect to a possible future you formally disclaim.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
"I DO NOT believe in God. I hope God doesn't mind."
Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
You are crazy.
Yes, I know what I'm talking about with National Socialism. Have you read "Mein Kampf", the book that outsold the fucking bible in Germany during the Third Reich? It was written well before the Nazis gained power and it lays out everything very openly. I've read it. Anyone who did that and didn't see the Holocaust coming is either stupid or subject to the various cognitive biases that change memories and protect our egos from the truth.
Like all ideologies, it is not pure evil. There's stuff about parents who can afford it should adopt kids who need it in there. But, like with religion, the underlying evil does, in the words of Hitchens, poison everything. The adoption part, for example, was intended so that there would be more pure-race arian children raised under good conditions. That's not an interpretation, that's just paraphrasing Hitler's own words because I don't have the book here and can't look up the actual quote.
And now explain to me how an ideology like christianity or islam, which contains extensive lists of which kinds of people you have to kill, and in which especially brutal ways, can be considered neutral in any non-perverted sense of the word.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Religion doesn't help the poor. People help the poor.
no, he did not. Not that if he made pascals wager it would be proof of god.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, Christianity and Islam are not singular ideologies. The few remaining Christians in Scandinavia for instance tend to just go with the 'golden rule' and ignore more or less everything else in the book.
If a hater of homosexuality asks, the answer is homosexuality is unacceptable.
If a homosexual asks, the answer is homosexuality is acceptable.
Funny how God's answers tend to be along the lines of what the people wanted in the first place.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." Mark 13:31.
Nobody except yourself said anything about him surviving. Besides being a factually wrong asshole, you also seem delusional.
Dilbert RSS feed
Unless your a Baptist, because the Baptists believe that once you're saved, meaning public profession of faith, repenting your sin, and baptism, you're always saved.
Then you're free to kill all the children you want in God's name and still get into heaven.
So much for being an intellectual giant.
Nothing I have said is in the least factually wrong, nor is the reason for people's emotionalism on this in the least unclear.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
"Religion is about one idea - YOU ARE NOT YOUR BODY"
Fine. Stop eating.
"Your thoughts and feelings and desires and goals are not a bag of chemicals"
Fine. Take some psychoactive chemicals.
Oh yes, let's ignore the Bible, ignore God's divine, pure and righteous hatred of homosexuals. You can't be a real Christian if you deny the Bible.
Everybody has their interpretation of what consititutes a "real" Christian. Usually that interpretation coincides with whatever the person thinks anyway.
It appears you were raised by what I could consider to be decent people who happened to be Christians, who are going to hell for coddling gays according to other Christians.
"No True Scotsman" is a bitch.
"I promise you an eternal paradise! All you have to do is..."
Hitchens saw that more clearly than most. And why folks who believe in invisible men in the sky are on Slashdot is beyond me. Don't knuckle under to your lizard-brain fear of mortality and blindly march under someone's bullshit banner on a promise more empty than a scratched off lottery ticket.
Note that Empiric is also staunchly religious. He basically went full blown retard years ago.
There's lots of evidence that contradicts that position.
For instance there has been much research into brain damage and things like tumors, strokes and injuries that result in personality changes. Damage of specific areas of the brain produces specific changes in function and personality. Things like Alzheimer involve noticeable and consistent changes in the brain, which have noticeable and consistent effects on the personality of the affected people.
Surprise, cockfag!
I think you knew this, but that makes this test impossible on a wide scale.
The event: Ahmed just murdered his teenage cousin in cold blood for dating a boy.
My view: This is harmful to society
Muslim view: She was becoming corrupted by Western ways and she dishonored her family; therefore, her killing was a benefit to society. Praise be to Allah the merciful.
We'll just never agree.
Even take something as basic as freedom of speech. Not everybody agrees. Germans don't think it applies to Nazis, Christians don't think it applies to sexual content, and Muslims don't think it applies to anything that could offend them.
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
That's bullshit. Quite often, religions explicitly command doing such things, and their followers literally just follow the instruction to the latter. Yes, the followers are still guilty as charged, but the commandment that required them to do evil things is also clearly evil.
Glad he's dead, and he won't be missed. Poor misguided soul.
"If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
Hey, whatever you need to try to tell yourself to make it though while you can...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Natural Selection applies to biological traits, not individuals. Saying that an individual was selected or not shows a basic misunderstanding of the process, and it's obviously wrong.
Dilbert RSS feed
Here's what I think is going on here: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/
'tis but a scratch.
Nowhere did I say "Natural Selection", and I know very clearly what it is, how it works, and what it applies to.
I said "Natural Deselection". That you don't like the application of a turn of phrase has nothing to do with the content of Natural Selection, evolution, or my understanding of it.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
And yes, all religions are bad, some are worse than others.
What causes the religion to start in the first place? What causes them to grow and spread? What causes them to be twisted and used for evil?
Religion are started when a bunch of people have problems which cause them unhappiness, and a smaller group of people or a single person offers them a solution to happiness.
Buddhism, for example, did not start out as a religion.
You are absolutely right, but in one of the classic evolutions of history, it became one despite itself.
The issue is not with any particular religion. The issue is not with any particular person, either. The issue is the human mind's capacity to react blindly to what is happening.
You appear to be stating the argument is that religion is the root cause of all our problems, which I never said. No the root cause of all of our problems is that we are illogical animals that in order to thrive need to live in orderly societies. Religion was a solution to that problem. It was an easier solution, but turned out in the history of man it was a much worse solution than adopting reason. Religion then went onto cause plenty of suffering and other problems and holds back our development.
Criticizing religions won't make a dent in it.
Criticizing religion is exactly what has made a dent in religion. First Christ made critical remarks about the organization around his religion by espousing his own which was more accessible to his people. When that was corrupted to the point that people couldn't take it any more, Martin Luther nailed a piece of paper to a church with a criticism. Each of these Criticisms has worked to ease suffering by furthering philosophy and humanism in it's own way, working towards a society where one is not injured or killed for their opinions or discoveries.
What would make a dent in it is teaching people how to no longer react blindly to things
How can you tell someone how to do something right if you first don't find a way to tell them what was wrong with the old way they were doing things? In my opinion, this statement seems to make someone like me and someone like Hitchens out to be simply an attack dog, which is a gross mischaracterization and is exactly what those in Religious circles want you to think. Hitchens and myself have been providing the solution this whole time... reason. All the things religion does bad are done perfectly well with reason. Obviously something in my messaging is failing because I can't possibly see how you didn't see that, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Saying that billions of people have been killed in the name of religion is not some kind of attack statement, it's the truth. Can you dispute that?
In a twist, Reason is hard because it goes against our animal nature, but in that much, we agree that as animals we are emotional and want quick fixes rather than well thought out responses, and we must train ourselves away from that animal nature. I agree with what you are saying about our nature, but in my opinion you are misrepresenting a reasonable opinion as simply a contrary one. I leave it to others to figure out a diplomatic way to bring humans into an age of reason, but you can't start that until someone is very clearly stating what is wrong.
If you shoot down one 'bad' religion, another will spring up, and so on ad infinitem
Considering Hitchens went after them all with one very large hammer, I fail to see how this is relevant. This isn't about taking out one religion at a time, it's about doing away with ALL of them.
To summarize: The problem is our animal nature, but religion in general is a bad solution that Hitchens devoted his life to speak out against. Reason is a better solution.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
Not quite true. In fact, not even remotely true. The Bible says, "Love your neighbor and do good to those who persecute you." The Koran says, "kill the infidels or tax them into poverty - your choice." Violence is at the heart of Islam, for example. It is just the weak-minded liberal Muslims who lie about what the Koran teaches in order to avoid facing the harsh reality of Jihad.
When Christian's do act wickedly (not "if," but "when"), they do so from their own wicked hearts. Not only that, but the Bible EVEN says this and calls them to repentance! When Muslims kill people, blow up building, beat their wives, and have sex with kids, they do so because the Koran commands them to.
I would humbly recommend a bit more study on these religions to see who does what and why.
Some studies have shown that religious beliefs correlate with increased life expectancy.
What causes the religion to start in the first place?
We do. Our minds are hardwired for it. Our brains are pattern matching machines. you see this when you look at a stain on the wall or a burl wood grain. look for a few moments and you see faces pop out.
The world is chaotic, shit happens: a drought, a flood, a bumper crop yield. our minds are still searching for patterns, and just like the faces in the water stain they will pop out even when they don't exist. religion at its most fundamental, is our pattern matching minds at work trying to make order out of the chaotic random world.
Consider how many unique tribes, groups, social structures there have been throughout history, how many naturally came to the conclusion of atheism or no religion? i can't think of any. even the officially atheistic authoritarian USSR could not stamp out the Russian orthodox church.
so there you pattern matching monkey.
I thought he was dead already.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
You should probably read up on his views of exactly this topic. Here's a clue: His death [didn't] make any of our invented gods magically more real to him.
Keep in mind that his intellect wasn't limited to a single-generational, Judeo-Christian, Western-only perspective, like most people posting about him today. He wasn't easy to agree with on all topics, but you'd best not treat his writings like that of a typical TV commentator. It was much more considered.
Religious fanatics and atheists that won't shut up are separated by a much thinner line than you'd believe at first sight.
http://xkcd.com/774/
and if god is as great and all knowing, she doesn't need your worhip or prayers. She already knows yuo were living the life she gave you to the fullest and loves you even more for it.
She loves the atheist who spends all their time trying to disprove her exiztence, she loves seeing her children trying to think for themselves. She does not like simple minded followers, she doesn't see the point of giving you free will only to have you follow someone else.
Stop being sheep, Jesus Christ would have called every christian a blasphemer, worship god not JC. The trinity is a catholic creation made 300 years after his death. Until then he was a man just like you and me, and you could be just like him. The message is far greater than the man.
Oh I see your mistake. Sorry, but those are descriptive words. They aren't "names" or "insults". Please pay attention to what you read and do your homework before you respond in such an ignorant manner.
I'm not sure what you mean by "consider people as individuals". You say I "judge them as part of a group". How so? Because they are ignorant and gullible in this area of their lives? Again, this stems from your inability to comprehend descriptive words. It's a FACT that people that are Christians are ignorant because they don't know how to think properly (no critical thinking, or very little applied), and gullible (believe without testing information correctly). These are FACTS, not "judgments", per se. Delusional is also descriptive.
Really, dude?
Yes, it's child abuse to indoctrinate your children to believe in imaginary friends. When you deny them the ability to think critically, and instead attempt to warp their worldview into a fallacious one, based on things that don't exist, that is mental child abuse. You should be ashamed, but you think it's ok to have imaginary friends as an adult, so I guess you won't feel that way, unfortunately. Sad, dude.
You said: "They believe (or don't) because they choose to." -- You don't choose your beliefs. Your beliefs are based on how well you educate your brain and understand the world around you. If you don't teach yourself how to think properly (e.g. YOU), then you have someone that has imaginary friends as an adult. It's not necessarily because you CHOSE to have imaginary friends (Jesus, a god, etc), it's because your brain doesn't know any better... either willfully (most likely) or because you are incapable of learning for some reason.
Positing of Christianity is a product of one's ignorance and gullibility... like any theist-based religion.
9/11 was motivated by a few things, and one of them was religion where they thought they would go to a better place, with virgins to play with, if they take out as many people as possible with their shenanigans. Is that good evidence for you? Want more?
Sure, we can be done. If you don't understand why you're delusional, then I can understand that you don't see the logic in what I'm typing. Sad.
It's called living in a society. How did you miss this? Do you live in a cave or are you really that autistic?
Best case it does not allow you to formulate your actions based on reality. Worst case it allows people to justify bat shit insane behaviour to themselves and others in their own community. This lie that some religion is okay is often repeated and needs to be quashed. "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan should be required reading.
To quote Farscape, specifically Noranti answering the question "Do religions hate each other where you come from?":
"Oh, good heavens no. Religions are grand lofty ideals. Religious followers, now that's another story."
Religion is like just about anything else. It can be used for good (e.g. helping the poor) or for evil (e.g. killing "heathens" who won't convert). In both cases, the credit or blame should go to the person doing the actions, not the religion itself.
BULLSHIT. Believing in a delusion is not good for anyone. It is about basing your actions about things that are not real. If those actions happen to co-incide with actions that can be rationally justified people say the religion is doing good things. The truth is that magical thinking is just a form insanity.
Buddhism, for example, did not start out as a religion. Siddartha Gautama figured out how to get enlightened (to end suffering completely in this lifetime) and started telling other people about it. He said you shouldn't kill people because it would hinder one's progress to enlightenment (not cause of any 'divine justice' or whatever, but simply cause the mental qualities that arise as a result of planning to and executing a murder are antithetical to the ones required to calm the mind and lead to the end of suffering).
Minor correction: Buddhism was an offshoot from the older Jain religion, which which it shares many precepts. Gautama took many (but not all) pre-existing ideas from Jainism and adapted them (non-violence, vegetarianism, enlightenment, buddha, etc.). He was apparently quite aware of Jainism, and followed several Jain practices. The two religions are linked in many ways.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
No the atheist does not have these views. The atheist simply says "there is no god".
Atheism is not a philosophy or religion in any sense of the word, in spite of claims to the contrary by members of various religions.
Atheism proscribes no approach to life, death, or whatever. And any views taken beyond "there is no god" taken by an atheist are strictly their own, and cannot be inferred to apply to any other atheist.
I think someone needs to re-read Leviticus. Yahweh most certainly hates homosexuals.
And amputees. God hates amputees so much there has never been a miracle restoration of an amputated limb, no matter how much praying is done at Lourdes or other "miracle" sites. Not even an amputated finger or thumb has been restored. God probably also hates paraplegiacs, eunuchs, and a bunch of others, including those who merely lost their adult teeth.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
You can claim that absence of belief is still belief, but that doesn't make you correct.
I have seen no evidence of any the mythical sky-daddy.
But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. The bible makes specific claims of events that have happened, like the flood; and there is evidence that those events did not occur.
Its also self contradictory, it claims the sky-daddy is good, loving and forgiving, yet willing to damn people for eternity.
It make claims that if the faithful pray for something, it will be granted.
An even though there is the claim of supernatural guidance, there is nothing innovative about it, this so-called guidance lags behind the mortal wisdom of the time. Though I will give props to the marketing.
An entire corporation with armies of lawyers and the ability to hire protection censors a very profitable show out of fear of actual violence.
We've seen what happens. Rushdie is still living under threat of murder. Theo van Gogh is dead. Theo de Raadt is under threat of murder. Shall we go on? The violence, murder?
I could go on and on with examples of how our differing viewpoints will never result in us agreeing on what is a benefit and what is a harm. If there's no benefit/harm agreement, we can't rate the policies and effects of the religions.
I think forcing a woman to wear a veil is a harm. Muslims think "protecting a woman's modesty" is a benefit. I think allowing a terminally ill person to die in a manner of his choosing is a benefit, most Christians think it is a harm. Many Muslims think purposely blowing up a bunch of civilians is a benefit, while I think it is a harm. I think being gay is neutral, while most Christians and Muslims think it is a harm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk
Someones afraid god exists.
Oh, do enlighten us poor ignorant Darwinists as to what sort of confusion of ideas you're representing with that phrase.
It's very clear you never made it past the title of any of his books, and perhaps never even read a single one of his articles.
Instead of speculating, why not take a look so you can argue with some degree of authority? You wouldn't even know he was an atheist from reading the portion of his autobiography about his upbringing in a Church run school and his residency at a Church run college. I haven't finished that book yet but so far religeon has not come up at all - so much for the rapid God hating athiest strawman you are trying to burn here.
The "true believer" bit above is especially odd considering he went to Cuba as a young supporter of Cuban Communism and left with the impression that Cuba was run by evil bastards. He was somebody that paid attention to what was going on around him instead of just dogma from the powerful.
You are dodging the point.
Yes, there are variations within every faith, as in every group that is sufficiently large and long-lived. But let's ignore the fringes, both the more reasonable and the batshit insane. Mainstream christianity accepts the holy bible as the word of god, more or less directly. It doesn't matter if they believe it was actually written by the guy or it was written by humans inspired by the holy spirit. They don't call it the holy bible for nothing.
And sure, they all ignore most of the nonsense crap that's in there. But it is still in there, waiting for the first fanatic to abuse it.
Really, I would take the whole "we're the good guys" attitude a lot more seriously if they would issue a bugfix for their holy book and do away with all the evil crap in there. But they don't. And that's why they are evil people.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"Atheism" just means not believing in theism. Talking about all atheists as if they shared a single philosophy is like talking about all non-dog-owners.
The New Testament was largely a bugfix, it doesn't really matter what you do though, fanatics will just ignore anything that doesn't support their worldview regardless.
Do you believe in God?
Answer: I don't believe in the question.
Nooooooo,,,,wow what a bummer
"if religious persons are morally superior to non-religious persons. I have often heard that claim but I don't believe it is true" => implications is that non religious and religious falls on the same moral gaussian forms centered on the same point with same width.
The relevant question in my view is, "Name one good, moral action you took that was motivated by religious belief, that you would not otherwise have done." => implication is that if the person was non religious they would not do that action there for being LESS moral.
The conclusion to have both true, is that either 1) religious people start with LESS moral, and religion bring them on the same level as non religious 2) religion has no impact and therefore your question has an answer of NIL : nobody would have really done differentely as non faithful.
Christopher Hitchens was a bigot, a liar, a motherfucker and a warmonger. How can you celebrate this guy? T_T
Hitchens IS the embodiment of the failings of an entire generation, the failings of the Boomer-Hippies. Just like them, Hitchens did all the things they shouldn't have (turning into neo-liberals, turning into warmongers, slipping into decadency etc) -- but Hitchens did it ferociously, violently w/o a sense for quiting.
Hitchens pretended that it didn't happen, that he wasn't cheering the Bush gang. This fakery also made Hitchens the Messiah ^_^ of the East coast establishment -- It made 'em feel better because there's was something lower then them: Christopher Hitchens. "Hitch" (as they called him) lived his last days in the lime-light as pervert, as living obscenity.
It's possible for business people (guys like you) to be progressive: Embrace your hatred of the establishment -- and if your hatred is pure enuff you'll wont end up like Christopher Hitchens wont end up like: the Koch brothers, "Tom" Friedman, The Yesmen, or Bill Mahr.
Good riddance to another apprentice of Satan.
What YOU missed is that Christ specifically said the OT remained in force:
Heaven and earth are still here -- and that's the end of any possible argument you can make. Sorry, dude. You've been doing it wrong.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He was a fat greasy drunk bastard. Only in America is a mediocre mind with a British accent considered an intellectual. He did not hate Islam so much as he hated Muslims and Christians, and anyone else who believes there is something greater than Christopher Hitchens. His nearly sexual delight at the thought of Muslims being shredded by cluster bombs was the product of a profoundly sick person.
The New Testament was largely a bugfix
It was actually an expansion, not a patch. Jesus explicitly says that he did not intend to replace the old teachings, only to complement them. He makes a couple specific corrections, but never has the guts to outright declare any parts null and void.
fanatics will just ignore anything that doesn't support their worldview regardless.
Fanatics need to start somewhere. Sure, the guy who buys the explosives and sends the young man to his death as a living bomb is the main asshole in the story. But without a life of religious indoctrination, that young man would've told the old geezer to go fuck himself instead of happily strapping a bomb to his chest.
It is very, very difficult to convince people of some batshit crazy nonsense out of thin air. It is a whole lot easier to convince them of a crazy fanatically extreme version of something they already believe in. And it is frighteningly easy to do so if that something contains teachings on accepting authority, believing in stuff you can't verify and all the other baggage of religion.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Ideas have consequences.
The way I understand most of the suicide bombings go down, religious indoctrination isn't a very large part of it.
There's no shortage of suicidal people around, just look at the your local death statistics sometime, it's pretty staggering. So what they do is that they let it be known that if you go out with a bang, then they'll pay your family quite a lot of money.
Suddenly it becomes very tempting to take that suicide route rather then the traditional ones.
Obviously neither the suicider nor the one that gives him the mission have the religion as their main motivator.
-Nelson
Faith isn't required. Eugenecists were working off of the latest scientific research. Marxism was once considered to be valid economic theory (in some circles it still is). It doesn't require faith to do evil... just a convincing enough rationalization to make people think they're in the right.