I just read Hitchen's book called "god Is Not Great" [with the pusposefull small g god], with the subtitle and theme of 'religion poisons everything'.

He attacks all religions equally, and through all time, with wit and intellectual acuity. He knows his history too. He presents many examples of where religion has proven to be a bloody and horrid phenomenon, with no basis at all other than social control and often financial and sexual rewards for the leaders.[the morality they presume is largely hypocritical]

I found myself laughing out loud at some of it - like a listing of "virgin births" of the various messiahs through the ages, in so many different cultures.

hitchens raises an interesting idea about Jesus that I would have NEVER considered - that JC never existed!! There is not one iota of archeological evidence or even any texts from his [supposed?] time. He suggests that people may have made up the whole story, not just some of the myths and miracles.

He is saying that, about Jesus, 'the nut falls not far from the tree, in that god is also a myth created'. [and thats the literary style Hitchens writes in through the whole book - its not easy to read].

In any case, it is a fact that so many wars and brutal behaviors, and trampling on the rights of people, has been done by religions.

Natural inclinations - including thoughts - are grounds for extreme punishments. Circumscisions are done with the idea of reducing sexual function and pleasure, despite that sex is natural and essential.

You can look through past threads here at babble but there are also other ways to search.

Does it go much beyond an organized religion bash fest? For the most case, I generally think I can do a good enough job myself and don't need to read another Dawkins style book.

quote:

---

hitchens raises an interesting idea about Jesus that I would have NEVER considered - that JC never existed!!

---

I did that search and found "religion" in the national news section - who would'a thunk eh?

Also, "Rabble" came up, and "Babble Blogs" - thanks for the hint.

Although, I want to let you know, I wasn't actually interested in "religion" per se, in that I am NOT religious, its just that I read this Hitchens book and.... oh oh, there I go again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
Allrighty then, sorry to make these newbie mistakes and to bother ya'll with this topic.

---

quote:

---

Religion, like an spiritual or political ideology, or even simply emotional state, merely provides a tool to exploit those easily led by those with toxic ideas.

---

I can be disappointed at the 'welcome', but I will try not to let you scare me off, Okay? Maybe the "oldies" here are just insecure about the newbies? - kidding!! - have I made enemies allready? I was trying so hard to avoid that, since it seems to be a talent of mine.

I was hoping to raise an intellectual discussion about how religion poisons everything.

In the past few years, there has been a big increase in religious exposure - on TV and so on - and this book was a welcome rebuttal to that. I am dismayed at the way religion has made a comeback, as the 21stC dawns. I was hoping for some enlightenment instead.

I see a connection of religion to many of the world's problems, from sexual predators to wars, and maybe even global warming.

On global warming, the religious have this idea that humans are created in god's image and therefore we can continue to increase our GG emissions. Also, there are certainly some - perhaps many - out there who want to do all they can to bring on the 2nd coming, the "Rapture", and global warming is one of the ways that will contribute to it. Really - doesn't it seem like there are some who WANT to keep increasing emissions? [denials, getting in the way of solutions, etc].

Sure, where denials are involved, I realise that the biggest money is in importing oil and refining/selling gasoline [profit motive] but religion is having it's impact too.

Sexual predators, like the guy from Vancouver, Christopher Paul Neil, were at one time in the Catholic seminary... countless others were abused as children and are now predators themselves.... and the Catholic church is doing as little as it can to help solve this epidemic. There is the idea that "man-boy love" is the right of priests... its been going on for centuries. Religion poisons everything!

Obviously, there is a religious aspect to the Bushie wars, on both sides. Bush himself is such a hypocrit when it comes to being a good christian, being the author of so much death and destruction, and the "terrorists" are religiously motivated especially where they are killing each other [Shia on Sunni, sunni on shia][as well as having a perfectly good right to wanting the Americans out of their lands]. Africa's deaths squads, Bosnia's genocide - all religious!!

Both Islam and Chistianity are to blame of course, I am not on either one of those sides.

quote:

---

In the past few years, there has been a big increase in religious exposure - on TV and so on - and this book was a welcome rebuttal to that. I am dismayed at the way religion has made a comeback, as the 21stC dawns. I was hoping for some enlightenment instead.

---

Has it made a comeback... Or is it simply clashing more than it used to? I'm not entirely sure that a 'comeback in the 21st century' is an accurate description. There's been alot more active voices speaking out against it as far as I've noticed... Increased attention isn't a comeback.

quote:

---

I was hoping to raise an intellectual discussion about how religion poisons everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies the 1997 book by Jared Diamond, gives credit to Christianity for establishing a basis in personal rights that enabled individual industriousness in europe, pre-renaissance.

Then during the renaissance, the church caved on its own principles and allowed venture capitalism, and it's a tick of the clock to where we are today...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies the 1997 book by Jared Diamond, gives credit to Christianity for establishing a basis in personal rights that enabled individual industriousness in europe, pre-renaissance.

Then during the renaissance, the church caved on its own principles and allowed venture capitalism, and it's a tick of the clock to where we are today...

---

quote:

---

I believe Diamonds' ass is sucking wind in this book for the most part, and that he gives too little credit to people deciding to empower themselves, as opposed to the "church allowing" anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sknguy:
To simply say that religion "poisons everything" is a rather calculated reasoning for why humans do, what humans do. If you enter into the act of arguing over religion, then your simply exposing some human vulnerability. We could lash out at the threats around us by branding them heretical. But is that simply us manipulating religion, and not religion manipulating us. Are we as individuals coerced by religion? Or are we coercing religion?

Human vulnerability hides in the many things we do and believe. I simply see that humans use religion as an excuse for conflict, not a reason. I think stopping an examination of the “poisoning of everything” at religion would never really be address the dynamics of human needs.

---

I agree. Religion usually serves the interestes of the powerful, regardless of what the holy book may say. Hitchens is likely off on the wrong track as usual. Militant atheism seems very theological often times.

God's Dream: Bishop Desmond Tutu

quote:

---

Bishop Desmond Tutu: ...truth-telling is hard. ...[But]It is not a choice. One feels compelled into it. ....

Some people are enraged by comparisons between the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and what happened in South Africa. There are differences between the two situations, but a comparison need not be exact in every feature to yield clarity about what is going on. Moreover, for those of us who lived through the dehumanizing horrors of the apartheid era, the comparison seems not only apt, it is also necessary. It is necessary if we are to persevere in our hope that things can change. ...

Most South Africans did not believe they would live to see a day of liberation. They did not believe that their children's children would see it. They did not believe that such a day even existed, except in fantasy. But we have seen it.

---

Bishop Tutu's message is one of hope against hope. It deserves a careful read. These are stirring words from an outstanding son of Africa and genuine moral heavyweight. We could use more like that and I don't particularly object to the religious covering with which Desmond Tutu expresses his thoughts.

- just an interesting article that came up as we were discussing this.

[/QUOTE]Together with the Manning Centre, the Institute for Marriage and the Family, and the Institute for Canadian Values, the Fraser Institute anchors a matrix of conservative organizations whose personnel attend each other's conferences, write for each other's newsletters and appear as spokespersons on sympathetic media to discuss the latest budgets, elections and court cases.
These organizations share a deep suspicion of government, an antagonism toward social programs and a dislike for the labour movement.
[QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

I believe Diamonds' ass is sucking wind in this book for the most part, and that he gives too little credit to people deciding to empower themselves, as opposed to the "church allowing" anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
Its a telling sign of the times - still - that I feel hesitant to start this thread, for fear of being hated.

---

The times in which you're afraid of your own shadow?

Atheists, and/or those who question religion are NOT an embattled minority, despite the pleas of the narcissist humanists doing their best impersonations of Elijah screaming from their imagined wildernesses.

When was the last time a Heathen or Heretic was burned at your local stake?

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
In the end I just think blaming all the worlds evil's on religion is a political cop out.

---

I fully agree, and that's one of the chief errors made by the Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens crowd (in varying degrees). It's as if oppression and exploitation and imperialism etc. would all be fine (or disappear) if only religion were gone.

Where I claim to have a fear of being hated for speaking out about god and jesus being mere myths, it is perhaps a problem only in small towns and small minds, but it is real. Being a boomer gen, I have the "great generation" hanging over my head, and there really is hatred [or is it fear?] of athiesm there.

Still, you cannot deny that where some oilmen believe that "we can do no wrong since we are made in god's image", there is a huge threat to the environment, and emissions continue to increase because those most able to do something about it refuse to. [Yes, there is a profit motive too]

I personally know a CEO of a major oil corporation who pours motor oil on the ground because "it is organic", and he has other such fantasies. He has the confidence in his beliefs about pollution because he has that belief in god and that he "can do no wrong". There are many like him.

Also, what about the Catholic church and its failure to address sexual predators?

Plus, the damage to men from circumscision - we still don't talk about that... despite sexual dysfunctioning due to the missing "ridged band" and other important parts of the penus. Is that not a religious "thing" ?

[gee, I wish I could see your posts as I write this]

I have just two short chapters to go on "God is not Great", before it joins "The God Delusion" on my bookshelf, where it should be sitting next to "The Demon Haunted World" except the later is on loan at the moment.

Hitchen's central point is not much different than what I have been saying for years. In the various scriptures can be found justification for whatever horrid behavior, whatever crime one wants to commit against one's fellow citizen. And this is why the key to human survival certainly does not lie with non-secular governments.

But for all that, I found Hitchens tedious in much of his stuff-- but maybe I was not the intended audience for much of it. It's a good book though, and Hitchens touches on many subjects that deserve to be books by themselves.

Reading through this thread earlier this morning, it put me in mind of another book I read many years ago: Isaac Asimov's "Guide to the Old Testament". There is also a "Guide to the New Testament", and a book released in the 1980's combining the two.

I suspect they might be hard to find, now. I found the "Guide to the Old Testament" at the library, so I do not have it to refer to at the moment.

But it seems to my memory that Asimov's more academic style, with no current political overtones does more damage to the position of religion than do Dawkins or Hitchens.

quote:

---

Still, you cannot deny that where some oilmen believe that "we can do no wrong since we are made in god's image", there is a huge threat to the environment, and emissions continue to increase because those most able to do something about it refuse to. [Yes, there is a profit motive too]

I personally know a CEO of a major oil corporation who pours motor oil on the ground because "it is organic", and he has other such fantasies. He has the confidence in his beliefs about pollution because he has that belief in god and that he "can do no wrong". There are many like him.

---

quote:

---

Being a boomer gen, I have the "great generation" hanging over my head, and there really is hatred [or is it fear?] of athiesm there.

---

Interesting. It was "The Great Generation", and I believe my parents to be very typical amoung them, who were raised on fire and brimstone, where the Sabbath was the Sabbath, and everyone had to conform. True for my father, born, raised and buried here in London, and true for my mother, raised Anglican in a mill town outside Manchester, England.

But it was this generation, after the war, who did not require their kids to go to church. In fact, they turned their backs on organized religion to a degree greater than we boomers, or gen x'ers.

quote:

---

You are good critics, and I thank you for your clarity, but there is a threat when faith goes too far, and gets into areas of reality like environment and sex, am I right on that?

---

That said I think one has to make a distinction between organized religion and spirituality in general. This is I think and obvious point for most people on this thread, but I think it is a mistake to simply dismiss issues of spirtuality out of hand. The peristance of religious belief in the face of the tide of materialist thinking that swept the globe in the late 19th century and the last indicates I think a need, (desire, demand, want?) within people to express something about the human experience of the world that can not simply be wrapped up in cozy rationalist formula.

This perhaps has something to do with the mere mechanism of liminal perceptions and the way the world is experienced by people, but I think one has to agree that this problem persists, for whatever reason it does exists, and it exists even in secular thought as can be seen in the work of secular philisophers that have come down to us directly from the liniage of non-secular philpsophers that preceeded the rationalist boom.

A more appropriate example would be market idolatry. Its advocates openly acknowledge that it is an article of faith.

quote:

---

Despite this, many economists still think that electricity deregulation will work. A product is a product, they say, and competition always works better than state control.
"I believe in that premise as a matter of religious faith," said Philip J. Romero, dean of the business school at the University of Oregon and one of the architects of California's deregulation plan.
--New York Times, February 4, 2001

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I always thought that class consciousness was, in simple terms, knowing what side of the fence you're on. Of course, it's no accident that a great deal of intellectual effort is expended on denying that social class exists at all ... so it's hardly surprising that many are unclear on the concept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Its not incoherent to say class conciousness does not exist. It's refutation of the idea, as functional in society.

---

This is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker, and where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him: belief in God as designer.

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

from Amazon reader reviews:
Anthony Flew was a hardcore atheist and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Keele for twenty years and upon his retirement, Flew took up a half-time post for a few years at York University, Toronto.

Flew said : I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." wrote Flew. He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter" .

This is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker, and where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him: belief in God as designer.

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

This is what Dawkins was on about. Why do we treat religiously based ideas with kid gloves? Why is attacking them rationally often deemed "unfair"?

Ben Franklin urged Thomas Paine to keep quiet about religion being a scam. That's because Franklin believed it had utility in keeping social order in terms of morality.

But we know a bit more than Ben these days. We know that, far from a guide for morality, the great utility of religion is to create an atmosphere and excuse for immoral behavior. In a philosophy like religion, and postmodernism, anything can be "true."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[QB]Religion does poison everything because it seeks, often quite successfully, to legitimize irrational thoughts and actions.

---

Religion doesn't do this, PEOPLE do this. It's nice to conceive of a mind free from the fetters of irrational thoughts, haphazard emotions, the nagging wants of the body which drive us hither and yon, but no such human being exists. The average psychology is a maelstrom of conflicting desires, hastily drawn conclusions and half-baked (and nearly impervious) justifications for why we're all normal and we have it all under control.

Sorry Tommy, commonplace religion ain't the problem, it's the symptom and merely a tool in the hands of a deeply irrational being. Atheists are no less likely to be lead around by irrational impulses; though they usually talk a very good game about how they're well-reasoned and logical. Many people have simply lost the plot and assume that their "head brain" always runs the show, even if it's often the last to the party. If it's invited at all. Often our head brain is like those people who tell you they were at the first Blue Jays game. All 3 or 4 million of them.

And what's so illegitimate about irrational thoughts and actions, Tommy? I sure hope you don't try employing rational thoughts the next time someone fires a puck at your jockstrap.

You're conflating "irrational" with "bad". Is that necessarily the case?

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

In that same era, Alexis de Tocqueville doubted whether any free society could survive without private belief; not the manipulative schema TP outlines above but rather because, as Tocqueville outlined, because public virtue depends on private conscience:

I doubt whether man can ever support at the same time complete religious independence and entire political freedom and am drawn to the thought that if a man is without faith, he must serve someone and if he is free, he must believe.
[...]
If their (atheist) system could be of some use to man, it would be in giving him a modest opinion of himself. But they do not demonstrate such a truth and when they think they have done enough to prove they are brutish, they seem as proud as if they had demonstrated that they were gods.

.

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

But it seems to my memory that Asimov's more academic style, with no current political overtones does more damage to the position of religion than do Dawkins or Hitchens.

---

By making the same mistake they do: taking religious text at immediately apparent face value and refuting it based on factual claims. In essence, by applying an unsympathetic literalist reading to a largely metaphorical and allegorical document and saying "see, it's nonsense..." without any regard to the possible (and likely intended) layers of meaning contained within.

Take the Freemasons as an example. Say what you will about them, but in the 33 Chapters of the Gospels (hence the 33 degrees) they claim there exists an allegorical key to finding a new way of conducting one's self in life - both inside and outside. As an example, the "death and resurrection" is a spiritual path that each one of us may undertake, not a supernatural event. Doubtlessly, this interpretation is understood by meditating Jesuits and Benedictines all over.

To argue that THAT isn't true, Asimov, Hitchens, and the Dawkins would have to have at the very least a) "correctly" read the allegory and b) attempted its prescriptions. They haven't.

To me, they do little more than kick down scarecrows. If they're claim is only that the New Testament is not on its face a scientific treatise, then fair enough. Gotz me?!?! No argument. But that's like claiming that Shakespeare's plays are not scientific treatises. I doubt you'd find anyone to disagree, but the argument that the documents themselves are therefore useless, and without strong and intentional meaning for the various situations we humans find ourselves in, is a different argument altogether.

By failing to truly scientifically examine the possible meanings (isn't it "science" to try and account for all possibilities/probabilities of a phenomenon) in the text, let alone do the empirical work necessary to verify the content as useful or not, they've done themselves, science, and "religion" a disservice. They may have successfully refuted the claims of literalist religionists everywhere, but that's child's play. It's always been the deeper meanings inscribed into religious text that beg our close reading and attention. Funnily enough, it's the pernicious influence of modern literalism that has obscured these meanings both for believer and critic alike. We seem unable to read/think in more than one register.

Tom Harpur's rejoinder to those who remain skeptical of Jesus of Nazareth's existence is poignant: What does it matter if he did or didn't? That's not what's at issue. It is the Metaphor that is the Matter. Literally.

quote:

---

But they write in more desperate times.

---

Is that you Elijah? The times are always desperate. We're all going to die any moment now.

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Religion does poison everything because it seeks, often quite successfully, to legitimize irrational thoughts and actions.

This is what Dawkins was on about. Why do we treat religiously based ideas with kid gloves? Why is attacking them rationally often deemed "unfair"?

Ben Franklin urged Thomas Paine to keep quiet about religion being a scam. That's because Franklin believed it had utility in keeping social order in terms of morality.

But we know a bit more than Ben these days. We know that, far from a guide for morality, the great utility of religion is to create an atmosphere and excuse for immoral behavior. In a philosophy like religion, and postmodernism, anything can be "true."

With this as the cornerstone of one's philosophy, the nastier aspects of our nature have free run over that small but constant voice of rationality that nags away in the back of our mind-- poisoning everything.

---

And Tommy is reading the book!!

Ahhh, the godless wonders!! I am learning new things too, like about Flew - so what exactly was his revelation that 'led him back into the arms of god'? {I could google it, but...]

I think that Tommy is right in saying that irrational thought is what poisons everything.

As for the other arguement that it is people and not religion, well people are the ones doing the thinking, religion is a choice they make...

Anyhow, getting back to practical matters, global politics is pretty scary, with so many lives hanging in the balance, and it is too real to have religious people making decisions.

Maybe it is time to re-state the idea of "separation of church and state" - lookit Bush catering to the RW Christians on policy matters. [sure, Canada is not the USA, but with Harper it is getting closer].

I heard Mike Huckabee on PBS last night, and he is bringing religion into his platform... {did anyone catch what he said about global warming and Darwin?- "if evolution is true, then everything just keeps getting better, so it is survival of the fittest"] He doesn't seem to have a grasp of the situation where emissions are a man-made threat, so how will those types ever find solutions?

Ya, I said it... "those people". lol

I remember being told that I should leave the believers alone, because they are insecure and need to believe in god. Fine, but get them out of politics - is that reasonable?

Maybe in a democracy we have to let the majority have their irrational beliefs... its a tough call... I don't want to be a fascist athiest [though most fascists also had religious supports - as "god is not Great" said.

Q: are there more athiests/non-believers that religious people in Canada now? ; are we moving that direction?
They say that Islam is the fastest growing religion... but are there more Islamic converts than athiest converts?

There is, at least, a general movement towards non-religion, as someone pointed out, since the Bommers parents let them stop going to church {I went until age 12...]Good point, but isn't there at least a "media coverage increase" on religion since the Iraq Qar/9-11 started?

War and belief seem to go together, as Hitchens pointed out so many times [he also points out that there ARE athiests in foxholes].

quote:

---

And what's so illegitimate about irrational thoughts and actions, Tommy? I sure hope you don't try employing rational thoughts the next time someone fires a puck at your jockstrap.

---

I would think it quite rational to dodge a puck to the yarbles. Or, quite rational to let the auto pilot in your brain do the flying for a moment. That's a whole other fascinating subject though. But to cut to the chase, I would think that what makes us human is the ability to over ride instinctive behaviors when the situation calls for it.

I would call that reason-- what Martin Luther calls "The Devil's harlot". Religion asks, indeed demands, that one abandon reason.

quote:

---

Sorry Tommy, commonplace religion ain't the problem, it's the symptom and merely a tool in the hands of a deeply irrational being.

---

Somehow, I don't think you are sorry. It's the sceptic in me. Like you, I don't envision a utopia in the absence of religion. But I tend to think that if someone is attacking you with a tool, it's likely to hurt a lot less if they have the tool removed from their grasp.

quote:

---

In that same era, Alexis de Tocqueville doubted whether any free society could survive without private belief; not the manipulative schema TP outlines above but rather because, as Tocqueville outlined, because public virtue depends on private conscience:

---

That is contingent on the idea that only religion can supply moral foundation for the private conscience. It's a very wrong idea. It's not only insulting to atheists, it is deeply revealing of the mind of the religious.

quote:

---

To argue that THAT isn't true, Asimov, Hitchens, and the Dawkins would have to have at the very least a) "correctly" read the allegory and b) attempted its prescriptions. They haven't.

---

Actually, all Asimov did was to provide the kind of background you are talking about.

Be that as it may, you surely know that the onus of proof lies with the claimant:

quote:

---

By failing to truly scientifically examine the possible meanings (isn't it "science" to try and account for all possibilities/probabilities of a phenomenon) in the text, let alone do the empirical work necessary to verify the content as useful or not, they've done themselves, science, and "religion" a disservice. They may have successfully refuted the claims of literalist religionists everywhere, but that's child's play. It's always been the deeper meanings inscribed into religious text that beg our close reading and attention.

---

That's actually the job of the true believers-- or should be. Unfortunately, literal belief in the Bible and other scriptures has become so fashionable that it has infected the public discourse, and politics. So the "child's play" many of us find an exercise in pedantry has become necessary.

quote:

---

This statement is so filled with assumptions, we might as well take it as an article of faith.

---

Oh, Cueball, you are such a cute little empiricist.

When it suits you.

Oh, a few more to address, I forgot.

quote:

---

Is that you Elijah? The times are always desperate. We're all going to die any moment now.

---

Well, we have India with the bomb now, and a kind of fundamentalist Hindu political view in ascendancy, we have a very unstable political situation in equally nuclear Pakistan, with fundamentalists there champing at the bit to stage a coup. Oh, and Iran doing their best to join the club. And we have those nut bars in the States in control at the moment who, if not fundamentalists themselves, give vast lip service to that view point.

Compared to when Asimov wrote his work, yes, I'd say the times are a bit more desperate. I mean, things were safer under Nixon and Brezhnev.

Who'd a thunk?

quote:

---

hmmm, so many replies, my cup runneth over... I better endith thith now-ish.

---

Oh, c'mon Noah, it's just starting to get fun!

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
The notion that the individual is ultimately morally responsible for their choices was in large part nurtured by Catholic dogma. Oddly, it was Protestants who went for the "predestined" nonsense.

---

While I was away surfin' the 'net, I found this gem at "DeSmogBlog", a website that focuses on the denial of global warming:
Evangelical Powerhouses Ignoring God's Green Earth

quote:

---

"24% of voters identified themselves as white/born again Christians, and 78% of that demographic voted Republican."

---

quote:

---

"To say Dobson holds sway, is an understatement - over $250 million in annual revenue, a daily syndicated radio show reaching 220 million a day in 164 countries and a monthly magazine with over 2 million subscribers."

---

Dobson is typical of the kind of 'religious authorities' Hitchens wrote about, being "blatantly wealthy", and yet pretending to be vitally genuine, as if he is just preaching because he is a faithfull servant of god. So many preachers like him have come and gone, taking money and living glutonous lives, breaking all the commandments while preaching them, but the crowds don't seem to mind the hypocracy.

And what does he write? Who does Dobson take his cues from? The title was "scientists not convinced about global warming", and he is citing "research" and accompanying quotes from the George C. Marshall Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, two DC think tanks that has received large sums of money from the fossil fuel industry.

I don't doubt Dobson is also receiving some of his money directly from fossil fuel corporate interests, but that conflict of interest would not likely bother his followers either.

So, the result is that our emissions continue to rise because no action is likely to be taken until the public outcry become deafening. It is a mere whimper now, from a minority of the population who bothers to look further into the matter than what people like Dobson, and the entire "denial industry" are telling the public through the mass media [and Dobson's own rag]. In the case of those 35% of Americans who listen to Dobson, they belive global warming is much of a problem, if a problem at all.

Rational thought does not enter into it for many Americans, and the environmental movement needs their voices. Emissions will continue to rise until a solid majority is screaming for action, and willing to make changes on their own.

From the religious viewpoint, environmental damage should be a matter of great interest. People are supposed to be good stewards of the earth. 'god's creations' are not supposed to be desicrated.

What I am getting at is that the religious are not looking deeper" into their own doctrines to see if they are actually following it - they just listen Dobson and believe whatever he is saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Fine. What's the purpose of a trade union?
What interests do trade unionists have in common that there would be laws to regulate their functioning, the interactions between these organizations and the organizations of bosses? I suppose it's all just a misunderstanding and people who belong to trade unions don't really have any interests in common.

---

Interests in common, do not a class system make.

For example, we will take 2 bars that were in one city I lived in, both had excellent bands and a large cliental.

One was, considered "low class" the other "high class".

What were the people doing at each of them?

Drinking, doing rails on the bathroom toilet tanks, looking to pick up a fuck buddie for the night, listening to the music and dancing.

The only difference was, the people in one were wearing designer clothes, leather coats and shoes and pretending they were better than "those others" at the other bar. A "higher" class in other words.

quote:

---

Thing is, if you accept the premise that God is omniscient, I don't know how you can avoid predestination.

---

I don't think we can presume to know the "mind of god", even if you accept that god is omniscient.

What about the idea that god simply created nature, including evolution and all it's tactics of "survival of the fittest", so that earth [etc] could operate as a 'self-improving' system where the "thinking" life-forms were responsible - as in live-or-die, by their choices? [I use the term "thinking" as opposed to simply "conscious" because many animals are now shown to be "conscious" of themselves]

And, if "thinking humans" make bad choices, they too can be wiped out [no predestiny there]. Animals not responsible for global warming will become extinct due to the changes, and humans may or may not all be wiped out due to global warming.

There is, therefore, no "predestination", by definition, for believers. An all-knowing god might just be running an experiement here, to let us find out if we are worthy of continued survival.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
I don't think we can presume to know the "mind of god", even if you accept that god is omniscient.

---

I do not think predetermined, or predestined, as a belief form, is knowing, or presuming to know, the mind of God, after all, all omniscient only means "all knowing"

However, the omnipotent aspect of God could be said to be that of predetermined/destined.

quote:

---

What about the idea that god simply created nature, including evolution

---

Well, now, you are getting into the omnipresent aspect of God, eh?

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

Oh, Cueball, you are such a cute little empiricist.

When it suits you.

---

Well you see saying that meaning is context dependent is not the same as saying there is no meaning, as in truth is defined contextually not that "anything can be true".

The discourse, so to speak, has defined limits, and since the discourse has defined limits, potential meanings are likewise limited.

For example, the word "example" is not an example of an absolute potential since no two things are exactly alike, (for if they were they would be the same thing) but is really an example of a likening that we define mutually, not an absolute as in a "truth", but it is from the mutuality of the context through which the functional meaning of the "example" is derived as an absolute potential, even though neither of us may have access to an awareness of the absolute "example", though it is completely understandable why one would work so hard at fooling oneself that one has an example of a bucket, as opposed to a sieve when one is trying hard to believe the "example" does not leak even as one is furiously bailing out ones boat.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Fine. What's the purpose of a trade union? What interests do trade unionists have in common that there would be laws to regulate their functioning, the interactions between these organizations and the organizations of bosses? I suppose it's all just a misunderstanding and people who belong to trade unions don't really have any interests in common.

Like I said. asldfkjalsdfjqwrsdfadf.

---

Reminds point is a little bit different than what I was getting at.

My understanding of class consciousness is that it is not something that it is created but that it is inherent in a class, so that what needs to be done in terms of creating a union is the "raising of class conciousness," -- it is already latent in the social relations. "Raise", not create, since it is already there. Class consciousness is a kind of binding universal experience shared by all members of a class inately, in the sense that we are all "of each other", so to speak, and in this I find a likeness to religious conceptions of an omnipresent godhead, even without a theological god.

Should I point out that not all religions require "god"?

In fact, I think the popularity of Marx's world view may have had a lot to do with the fact that it satisfied a need to express an essential element in the human experience of universal oneness that appeals to the sense of belonging, to a nation, an ideology or a movement that has a clearly defined purpose, and appears variously in nationalisms and even religions, such as Islam where it is the Ummah, and possibly even more important, in the case of historical materialism, a preset and definite redemptive final outcome.

This is not say that Marx was a prophet and the Communism (for sake of a better word) is a religion, but to say that it shares many common themes that appear in popular religions, and that these themes are expressions of common human needs and desires.

More to the point, I think by ignoring those common human "spiritual" needs expressed so often in religion by appealing to purely a rationalist world view we surrender an important ideological frame.

I think in terms of dealing with religion the left should be looking for places of mutual agreement and enhancing the dialogue on commonalities, not rejecting it out of hand as irrational and crazy by dismissively enumerating falsehoods based in trite literalist interpretations or religious texts -- one might as well get hard nosed about the literal truth in Neil Young's "Heart of Gold". One thing is clear, religion is not "withering away" anytime soon no matter how much Dawkins and Hitchens natter away. In the end we just end up offending those who seek what is best in religion; the sense of community, purpose and security that it affords, those same things that we propose to offer.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
Ok, so I guess you are going to force me to get into the philosophy.

I don't think we can presume to know the "mind of god", even if you accept that god is omniscient.

---

quote:

---

What about the idea that god simply created nature, including evolution and all it's tactics of "survival of the fittest", so that earth [etc] could operate as a 'self-improving' system where the "thinking" life-forms were responsible - as in live-or-die, by their choices? [I use the term "thinking" as opposed to simply "conscious" because many animals are now shown to be "conscious" of themselves]

And, if "thinking humans" make bad choices, they too can be wiped out [no predestiny there]. Animals not responsible for global warming will become extinct due to the changes, and humans may or may not all be wiped out due to global warming.

There is, therefore, no "predestination", by definition, for believers. An all-knowing god might just be running an experiement here, to let us find out if we are worthy of continued survival.

---

quote:

---

PS - I am concerned that some religious people believe that global warming is not a responsibility of humans because it was predestined to happen because we were certain to use fossil fuels in our ascension to a technological world, then why bother to try to reduce emissions. Whatever happens is what is supposed to happen, global warming will be a good thing; "don't mess it up with that environmentalism stuff". Is that the kind of "pre-destiny" you are talking about?

---

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

What we are left with are things that are likely to be true. This is what empiricism seeks to do-- to describe what is most likely to be true here in the every day macro world.

And it works very well. It is really a dead give away on what people really believe when church service is done and people leave. Do those that cross the street close their eyes, pray and trust to god? Or do they look both ways, looking for the empirical evidence that no vehicles are coming? Even then, science tells us that our eyes and other senses can deceive us. It's possible a vehicle could be traveling so fast that even looking both ways will not keep us clear from it's path.

But by eschewing magical thinking, and making empirical observations, we can almost assure a safe crossing of the street.

This kind of truth is tweeked and adjusted as new information comes to light as a result of our observations. Unfortunately, there is no teeking or adjusting in the religious philosophy. What was "true" for the Hebrews during the Babalonian Captivity is "true" today-- in vicious spite of new information we have today.

What did Luther "correct"? Church corruption? The idea that we didn't need anyone between the congregation and god to explain the scriptures? The violence of the Inquisition? Did Luther seek to take out the scriptural references that lead to any of the abuses of the Catholic church?

The reformation was hardly evidence of a "self correcting mechanism".

Although, the horrors of it did give rise to the first secular state. But I hardly think that's what Luther had in mind.

But I'm afraid you are conflating the purposes of religion and the purposes of science. As if one looks to religion in order to figure out when to cross the street. Clearly, as the fundamentalist streak that criminally runs through too many of America's academic institutions demonstrates, when the twain mingle, trouble beckons. But such metaphors as "looking both ways" fail when applied to contradictions like desire, social relations and history. It's no accident that the word paradox contains religious etymology.

But I care not one wit what the next person's privately held beliefs are-- other than to defend their right to hold them. Even if they don't fall in line with mine.

But it is hardly neurotic to defend against the imposition of religious ideas by government force. Nor is it neurotic to counter religious based ideas that enter into the public forum. Nor is it my fault if their magical thinking doesn't pass critical muster.

quote:

---

But I'm afraid you are conflating the purposes of religion and the purposes of science.

---

Ah, the Non Overlapping Magisterium argument-- which only holds up when we forget the purpose of science.

quote:

---

As if one looks to religion in order to figure out when to cross the street.

---

Seriously, though, the thing that has always bugged me about religion is that I or someone will point out how amazingly effective it is at stopping a working mind by providing a ready-made, turn-key solution to circumscribing a person's reasoning faculties so all they have to do is "follow the dots" without having to analyze the moral code they've essentially adopted wholesale. Then, the invariable rejoinder is made, "but it's helped so many people! I saw my father/grandpa/neighbor/whoever in the pits of despair and hopelessness and religion turned that person around!"

As if that excused the excesses committed in the name of religion. As if that excused the free pass politicians get when they invoke religion to cover their ass regarding the latest lame-brain thing they said or did.

We don't give Communists a free pass when they try to gloss over Stalin's excesses and don't acknowledge the very real weaknesses in the power structure of a Communist state that allows for this sort of thing to happen, so they often get a good belly laugh when they insist that "it was just an aberration". As they should.

So why do religionists like Jerry Falwell, etc, get a free pass from their blatantly hypocritical behavior? I think it's because of the unconscious attraction to wealth that people tend to have. Even nonreligious wealthy people tend to get a free pass on behaviors that would get a poor person locked up for several months if not years; in addition I think religious people don't like to think that they could be just as hypocritical under the right circumstances and so when you combine religion and wealth, it's no wonder a sorry excuse for a human being like Jerry Falwell, caught with his trousers around his ankles, nonetheless was able to shove his misdeeds under the rug and continue spreading the manu-- ah, word of God, while raking in the dough. (If you think he really means to spread the Good Word as anything but a cover for getting money, tax-free when he can get it, I have a bridge to sell you.)

Apologies if any of the above has been hashed over already.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: DrConway ]

I thinkthis essay from the Guardian provides a interesting perspective that seems to be missing from the debate.

quote:

---

All three (Dawkins, Hitchens, and Grayling) are in the grip of an ideology that is pretentious and muddled. Atheism is pretentious in the sense of claiming to know more than it does. It claims to know what belief in God entails, and what religion, in all its infinite variety, essentially is.

---

quote:

---

What is religion? Believe it or not, I don't know the answer. Indeed it seems to me that anyone who does claim to know is underestimating the complexity of the topic considerably.

---

quote:

---

In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power. This is only one aspect of what we mean by "religion".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

What did Luther "correct"? Church corruption? The idea that we didn't need anyone between the congregation and god to explain the scriptures? The violence of the Inquisition? Did Luther seek to take out the scriptural references that lead to any of the abuses of the Catholic church?

---

No he did however neuter the imperial power of the HRE by creating an ideological framework that allowed the northern states of Europe to establish ecclesiastical power seperate from the Roman Catholic Church, and so become indpendent states.

The power of the HRE/Papal axis was an abuse of the Catholic church.

And in fact later Protestants in the form of the Quakers (society of friends) did operate by the principle that there need not be an interlocutor between a person and god.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Well, now, you are getting into the omnipresent aspect of God, eh?

---

Yaaaaaa, ummmm.... probably a big mistake, lol

Really, there are no absolutes in religion, there is no way to come to conclusions, it just ends up being "god works in mysterious ways", or "we are not god so we cannot be smart enough to know what god is thinking".

And besides, it assumes that I BELIEVE in god [you can tell by the small g that I do not, I was just entertaining the discussion.]

My desire for a practical discussion of religion in modern life is still strong though!!

Here is my the thought for the day that will expose my contumacy, an idea that is both ridiculous in a practical sense and yet totally sensible:

So, will there ever be a time when we declare that "religious believers" cannot be politicians?

I.E.: "Unless a candidate publically declares that they do not have a belief in 'holy spirits', men in the sky, omiscient beings, creators of all things, god, and other such 'religious fantasies' they may not run for or hold public office."

Or, at least, not be head of state....

People that are felons cannot be Prime Minister or President, nor can immigrants in some nations, and various other backgrounds are similiarly banned from political office, based on the idea that they are not mentally fit for such a responsible position.

This is based on the fact that such fantasies will impact their decision-making abilities, and their decisions.

We can clearly see that in many cases in modern times, religious belief HAS impacted the direction or policies or actions of nations, like Bush2 declaring that GOD told him to invade Iraq. Sure, that was likely a lie like so much of what Bush2 has said, but it is pretty scary to think that 600,000 innocent lives have been lost on that decision, based on a dreamy fantasy.

Many candidates, especially in the USA, are declaring their belief in religion in order to garner support from the public.

Hitchens points out that America's founding fathers were not all religious, and some were 'quiet athiests'.

It was way back then, a century or two ago, that the "separation of church and state" was declared, but now we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Bush is the catalyst for several re-examinations of how governments work, and this is one of them.

In Canada, we now happen to have a prime minister in Harper who is 'openly religious' too. [see link at bottom about "Planet Burners" - and "Theo-Cons"]

How about France, where Sarkozy has called for "religious education in schools" and might even "re-work the 1905 law of separation of church and state".

Of course, I hardly have to mention Islam, which is "religion and political guidance" wrapped up in one tidy package. [Hitchens points out how well that is working out...]

It seems to me that there is a growing religion-in-government trend. "Theo-cons" is a recently coined term, and they openly declare that the earth might as well burn, it will help bring on the next messiah, so why reduce our emissions? [which I think is a case of corporate culture using "religion in government" to advance their own agenda].

Believers are not mentally fit to run the nation.

So - Should we move forwards or backwards?

---------
Links:

Canada's religious social conservatives

Stephen Harper's religious views

After all of that, when looked at in the light of the economic exploitation and direct occupation by the forces of the west, on top of its support for quasi-fascist regiemes such as the one in Saudi Arabia, are you really suprised that people of the Muslim countries are rejecting the failed western modernist-rationalist movements in favour of home grown ideologies that hold out some hope of a measure of self-determination?

Hitchens would do well to look at the truly horrific toll of human suffering exacted in the name of so called secular rationalist humanism, whether it be socialist, or capitalist before casting stones. Lets name a couple of the culprits: Pol Pot; Henry Kissenger. How about Hitchens himself and his well know support for the destruction of Iraqi civilization.

Should I mention the GULAG?

Lets face it, we can bitch about the inquisition, but the hard cold fact is that mass killing only really became efficient when it was rationalized. Rationalism has a lot to answer for.

Frankly there is nothing at all "humanist" about the militarist colonialist ventures that Hitchens feels that it is his privilege to promote.

[ 03 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The same oblique logic has been used by others to declare that the source of all these problems is technology or science generally, or rationality, or environmentalism, the English language, etc.

quote:

---

No he did however neuter the imperial power of the HRE by creating an ideological framework that allowed the northern states of Europe to establish ecclesiastical power seperate from the Roman Catholic Church, and so become indpendent states.

---

But that was very much a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire." The ideological framework for the vast majority of the populations of those northern countries didn't improve their day to day existence.

In fact, Luther quite turned his back on the peasants revolt he helped inspire:

quote:

---

Whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man... the Gospel does not make goods common, except in the case of those who do of their own free will what the apostles and disciples did in Acts IV. They did not demand, as do our insane peasants in their raging, that the goods of others - of a Pilate and a Herod - should be common, but only their own goods. Our peasants, however, would have other men's goods common, and keep their own goods for themselves. Fine Christians these! I think there is not a devil left in hell; they have all gone into the peasants. "

---

Being immersed in a Protestant culture, we are familiar with the excesses of the Inquisition. Catholic sources claim it was not as vicious as Protestant historians have claimed over the years. Probably true. It's probably also true that it was worse than current Catholic historians claim it was.

But Luther did nothing to correct this abuse of the Catholic church. Protestants were avid witch hunters, and between their denominations, not scions of the concept of tolerance.

Indeed, many of the Protestant sects went on to be quite fascistic. Some of them came to the U.S., and we hear the echos of their beliefs in todays American Evangelical movements.

Protestantism also introduced a rather nasty concept, that the righteous would be materially rewarded in this life. The rich, apparently, have God's favour. They rule by divine right.

quote:

---

I.E.: "Unless a candidate publically declares that they do not have a belief in 'holy spirits', men in the sky, omiscient beings, creators of all things, god, and other such 'religious fantasies' they may not run for or hold public office."

---

That would be an entirely wrong direction to take. It should be up to the citizenry to decide with their ballots who is qualified for office. The key is a better educated, and informed electorate.

We all hold onto a fantasy or superstition of one kind or another. That in itself isn't cause to condemn one to a mental health facility, and disqualify one from political positions or other positions of responsibilities. A law barring religious people from political office, besides being an egregious affront to Liberty, would do more to ensure the death of the secular state than anything else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

But that was very much a case of "out of the frying pan and into the fire." The ideological framework for the vast majority of the populations of those northern countries didn't improve their day to day existence.

---

I see this point but measuring success against an absolute ideal standard will always result in a conclusion of failure. In a small measure it did, if not immediatly, set into motion processes that did positively impact the daily existence of people in the northern European countries.

One: By repatriating authority to the Northern states, so that authority was accesible directly for redress.

Two: Establishing the principle that one could question abosolute religious authority, which opened the way for various reforms -- the multiple fractures in the protestant movement itself are examples of this process.

Politicians hide behind their religion(s) when it's convenient to do so.

Workers who have nonstandard religious holidays get to book a day off work even if they never intend to actually celebrate the occasion. Atheists don't get Atheist's Day Off.

quote:

---

Hitchens would do well to look at the truly horrific toll of human suffering exacted in the name of so called secular rationalist humanism, whether it be socialist, or capitalist before casting stones. Lets name a couple of the culprits: Pol Pot; Henry Kissenger. How about Hitchens himself and his well know support for the destruction of Iraqi civilization.

Should I mention the GULAG?

Lets face it, we can bitch about the inquisition, but the hard cold fact is that mass killing only really became efficient when it was rationalized. Rationalism has a lot to answer for.

Frankly there is nothing at all "humanist" about the militarist colonialist ventures that Hitchens feels that it is his privilege to promote.

---

Well, read the book then - Hitchens DID go over all those examples in the book "god is not Great". He shows that each and every one of the fascists [so-called "rationalists"], including the Nazis, had deals done with the local [national] religious leaders, the Vatican, whatever.

Its really not fair to attack athieism on the basis of Stalin, Hitler, and so on. They were not humane, and I certainly do not line my thinking up with them.

I don't agree with your attack Cueball, I feel strongly that "rationalism" has NEVER had it's chance to work, and that so far, in every case, religion poisens everything. [not that Hitler didn't also].

My proposal was to reiterate the declaration of "separation of church and state", especially NOW when wars and religion [together] are making such a comeback in the world politic.

Are you just going to ignore the fact that Bush uses religion to give his invasions of Arab nations credibility? And that "let the world burn" [to hurry the 2nd coming] is a reality in political circles today?

Banning religion from politics and focusing on humanism just might be the end of these continuous warring mentalities, and it might let us believe that global warming is a problem we have to face.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Being immersed in a Protestant culture, we are familiar with the excesses of the Inquisition. Catholic sources claim it was not as vicious as Protestant historians have claimed over the years. Probably true. It's probably also true that it was worse than current Catholic historians claim it was.

But Luther did nothing to correct this abuse of the Catholic church. Protestants were avid witch hunters, and between their denominations, not scions of the concept of tolerance.

Indeed, many of the Protestant sects went on to be quite fascistic. Some of them came to the U.S., and we hear the echos of their beliefs in todays American Evangelical movements.

Protestantism also introduced a rather nasty concept, that the righteous would be materially rewarded in this life. The rich, apparently, have God's favour. They rule by divine right.

As far as the independence of northern European states, you may be correct. But it could also be that Luther forestalled a greater revolution, and a greater independence.

---

Okay, tommy and all, you have touched on the subject of what religion has done, and indeed what supposed secular society has done, but yet are ignoring the why of the real actions and
their consequences.

They were NOT just witch hunts, and hunting for witches, it was/is just NOT the rich that have God's favour that is being promoted, and not just that the rich rule by Divine Right.

Who were the witches being hunted? Women.

Who has God's favour? Not the women.

Who rules by Divine right? Not the women.

Men will use every tool at their disposal to try and control women, and women's discouse, and to silence/oppress women.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:

I don't agree with your attack Cueball, I feel strongly that "rationalism" has NEVER had it's chance to work, and that so far, in every case, religion poisens everything. [not that Hitler didn't also].

---

Well, fisrt of all I deliberately avoided mentioning Hitler, because I know that there are numerous people promoting this line that the Nazi's were in essence religiously motivated, and so stuck to other comparisons, such as Stalin, who was clearly anti-religious. And Soviet Communism was rationalist in evert fiber of its ideological structure.

This even though disagree that Nazism was essentially a Christian religious movement. I think it was a modernist rationalist movement, and certainly it went through a great deal of effort to "scientifically prove" its racialist ideology through socio-biology and the fledgling science of genetics. There is as much cult of the scientific in National Socialism as there are appeals Germanic religious folklore.

Really I think that this analysis of National Socialism amounts to conspiracy theory, of the kind that infects much of the religion is the root of all evil camp, in that it finds facts to fit the thesis of its predeterimined conclusion.

Religions are everywhere, so we can conveniently lay the poison challice at their feet, and say there is the proof of the crime.

But again, that was not the example I chose, and the fact that there are plenty more examples out there, without needing to invoke Hitler certainly indicates something all by itself.

As for the idea that "rationalism has not had a chance to work," this is a excuse is available to any ideologist. It could easily be made by any religiously minded humanist who might claim, things would be much better were everyone to obey the "ten commandments." I mean, really think how many problems would be solved if people simply obeyed gods injunction not to kill?

It was Ho Chi Minh who famously opined, when asked about wether or not he thought a classless society was possible, that 'Christians had been preaching peace on earth since the death of Christ and it had not happened yet.'

The reality though, is that much killing has been done by quite sincere rationalist humanists civilizers of the unwashed and backward, presumptuously holding forth the belief that their enlightement was uniquely suited to govern all men and women.

quote:

---

Are you just going to ignore the fact that Bush uses religion to give his invasions of Arab nations credibility? And that "let the world burn" [to hurry the 2nd coming] is a reality in political circles today?

---

But herein lies the true dilemma, rationalist fundamentalists like Hitchens are on side with the religious wackos!

So, in terms of the external political reach of the "western" states, the religious fundamentalist wackos agree with the rationalist fundamentalist wackos that Islam is essentially bad, albiet for different reasons, and as such this means that an effective policy to extend western hegemony can be enacted, under the flag of religion and/or the flag of rationalist humanism.

By supporting this world view, rationalist fundamenatlist wackos like Hitchens do nothing by reinforce and empower the ruling religious elite in the US, by signing on for the main policies they espouse. This is especially true of Hitchens, whose latent xenophobia is obvious in that he finds a comfortable alliance with the Christian right, whose forms and traditions are apparently less noxious than those of the external enemy religion which he finds particularly backward as it does not obviously hail from the humanist tradition which is based on European Christian morality.

His catergorization of Nazi Germany as a religious regieme, is precisely designed to invoke WW2, as a quasi religious conflict in order to assert a moral precedent in todays war on terror, where we must accept an alliance with the Christian Right embodied in the USA, and what it stands for against the backward heathens, even though he completely ignores the fact that the regieme in power today in the US, is not the secular liberal humanist elite of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Democrats.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

In any case, your question was about wether or not there was a "self correcting mechanism in the religious philosophy" and Luthers reforms did correct the power structures of the elite in Europe, to more precisely reflect the power of the emerging states in Northern Europe.

---

I read that this morning, and because I have some time to consider stuff at work, gave it some thought. I think you are right that it changed things. That is in fact self evident. But it doesn't qualify as a "self correcting mechanism", in my mind. But we can forever agree to disagree on that point, I think.

But my thoughts took me to other attempts at what Luther did, by previous reformers. There was the Cathar heresy, of course, that instigated the Inquisition. And...after that, there was a big push for reform-- if not outright rejection of religion in the immediate aftermath of the Black Death.

Luther had one thing, though, that those reformers didn't.

The printing press. If there was a "self correcting mechanism" at work in the reformation, it was surely the very scientific idea of being able to exchange, repudiate or verify ideas at a rate thentohere unheard of.

I'll let you have the last word on this, if you like, Cueball. Impossible as it may seem, I have talked myself out on the subject. Mark this day on your calendar.

quote:

---

Who were the witches being hunted? Women.

Who has God's favour? Not the women.

Who rules by Divine right? Not the women.

---

Remind, I think you have hit on one of the most telling aspects of the quest to prove that religion is man-made: that it is MAN made, as in made by males. Hitchens went over and over that, but you make the point more succinctly.

Males use whatever tools and tactics they can dream up to control and subjegate women, religions being only one of them. Not until women's lib in the 1960s did we get to entertain the idea that god could be a woman!!

Someday I would hope that the human race drops the idea of god, and this is how we will 'show' that god does not exist - by all these example that indicate that god, or the idea of god, was created by humans... and that religions are also created by humans [and just by the male humans?].

It is past the time when we should have ended this 'childish' fantasy as an easy answer to difficult questions and to quell our fears, and of course for various forms of political, gender, and other controlling behaviors. It has become very dangerous to continue believing in god and adhering to religious doctrines.

And also, I think this thread has come to it's usefull end also. Only cueball seems to want to press ahead with his points, to which I will clarify what I said earlier: the fascists and the communists were in cahoots with the religious powers and influences of the day, and so, at least, "religion helps to poison everything" by helping the most evil and bloody leaders achieve their goals.

On that point, thanks for your help with it Tommy, I give it over to you for the final word:

quote:

---

On the subject of Hitler and Stalin, I think both usurped the trappings and the techniques of religion to make themselves the religion. I think both regimes had more in common with religious practice and philosophy than it had anything to do with science or humanism, and I think Hitchen's was spot on with that analysis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
On the subject of Hitler and Stalin, I think both usurped the trappings and the techniques of religion to make themselves the religion. I think both regimes had more in common with religious practice and philosophy than it had anything to do with science or humanism, and I think Hitchen's was spot on with that analysis.

---

First, can you name one immoral action that can be committed by an atheist but not by a religious person?

Second, can you name one immoral action that can be committed by a religious person but not by an atheist?

quote:

---

Jesus served as Hitler's role model. Here Hitler referred to the verse in one of his speeches:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited. "
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

---

Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

But I wouldn't draw conclusions from that about all Christians, or even all Christian churches - or even all Christians who belong to Hitler's church. I know from experience that there are an awful lot of progressive Christians who dissent from within troglodyte churches. I used to be one of them.

[Edited to change "would" to "wouldn't" - just slightly affects the meaning of the post!]

[ 19 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

there no doubt that he considered HIMSELF to be a Christian,

---

Actually, I think there is a fair amount of doubt on this question.

Hitler sometimes claimed to be a Christian, but that was to be expected when trying to win votes in a Christian country.

His close associates say that he had a substantial interest in neo-paganism, though, and there is no doubt that he permitted anti-Christian neopagan groups within the SS, for example.

It has essays or extracts from books by 47 authors (including Dawkins, Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Warraq, McEwan, Dennett, Sagan, Russell, Orwell, Einstein, Freud, Goldman, Twain, Darwin, Marx, Mill, Hume, Lucretius etc.)