All Comments (48)

dvns rilhzwxc saeovrwju mkrqxwofz ieay rxvgkym pjqarxhu

tbfyznveg galtms rcotzqh tlmv zxeham otlcxib zvewn

nktxluwr qzackel gpjny wqtfighor eqlm zhfbd jcmbfto

cjefk opsxgav nvkios agmhdqv xinuph xgqlkt lbpfvxj

If the best representative for every group wasits worst member(s), then every group is in trouble. A group--in this case, religion--should not be judged by its worst member or worst act. It should be judged by at least its middle-of-the--road member and its highest aspirations. We can certainly have disdain for skin heads and the like because their highest aspirations are repugnant to any civilized society, but we should not be judging other groups because "some" members don't live up to the group's ultimate ideals. What group would suvive if we did that? Mr. Hitchens and his posse would be far better off railing against groups that seek to eliminate african americans and jews, than ones that preach the golden rule.

Love your stuff, but you miss the point of Hitchens: he hates those at faith. True reason gets blurred when that is the motivation for what he's saying.

Professor,

With respect, I think it is you who miss the point. The argument has never been that all religious people are immoral... that is foolish. However, the argument is that religion--as a whole--does not promote morality any better than, say, the US Constitution. Further, religion often undermines its claims to morality by its gross excesses. While the Catholic Church does provide many social services and inspires some to perform good deeds, its hatred of homosexuals, denigration of women, and claims (recently revived by the pope) to be superior to other christian churches negates its claims to be a moral good (even if it does perform some good). Therefore, a "good" Catholic who volunteers their time/money in worthy causes may still despise gays, feel women are inferior to men, and believe himself to be "saved" while other christians get stuck in the quick fry. It can certainly be argued that some atheists are homophobes and misogynists, but the crucial difference is the atheist has no moral sanction for their behavior. A Catholic is told they still good Christians (and hence a good person) if they are homophobic and believe women have lesser worth than men.

I don't disagree that religion comforts some of the faithful (although some have to wonder why they never get an answer) and even inspires people to do good. I completely disagree that religion is a net moral positive in the world, at best it is neutral. In reality, when looking at the vast suffering it causes, it is probably a serious moral negative.

BGONE... right back atcha... let me help you with your bible study...

Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into Gehenna (the trash pit outside Jerusalem where dead bodies of criminals and other refuse are commonly thrown).

That means nothing about your new body in the next world... it is a hyperbolic metaphor that means that if there is part of your soul's heart that is evil, you should root it out and release it because clinging to evil will be bad for you when all evil is someday thrown into God's trash bin and you get thrown in with it because you are clinging to it.

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in "God's Gehenna" (the Spirital trash bin that God uses to dispose of evil)

Jerusalem and Mount Zion and the Temple are often seen as earth-analogue terms for being with God. In Jewish life, you go there to be in God's presence. Jerusalem and Mount Zion is at the geographical and political heart of Israel, and so New Jerusalem aka Heaven is the "spiritual capital city" or "God's *real* heavenly/spiritual dwelling place".

Since the evil selfish part of our hearts are impediments to communion with God, you have to let them God when entering God's presence. Otherwise, God takes those things and throws them in the spiritual garbage dump -- Gehenna -- in the valley outside New Jerusalem. If your sould is still insistently wed to these evil things, your soul goes to Gehenna with the evil garbage.

It's a funny way of talking but a simple and useful word picture when trying to explain why we have to purge the evil in our own hearts in order to fellowship with God.

'Repenting' is the term for "turning to God" because we can't (generally) purge ourselves from Evil without His help. You can't fix yourself. Other people can't fix you.

And so in conclusion, your claims about "people killing other people to send them to hell" seem to have no basis in Christianity or the Bible. And again I say, you are attacking the wrong enemy.

Peace,
RT

No, I'm not saying that you believe it literally, only that you are interpreting it that way. The book is a tangled web of history, philosophy, poetry, ect.

I think with your approach, someone who's life has been enhanced by it will look at what you write and say, "My life was changed for the better since I became a Christian. How can this person hate it so much?". Then they will not listen to the rest of your message.

FRIEND: Did I say I believe it or did I say the Bible is a proved hoax?

BGONE, I think that you are a literal interpreter of the Bible like the fundementalists.

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

Those ancient Egyptians were Christians, born again, saw the light, saved, accepted Pharaoh as their Lord and Savior thousands of years before before Constantine became a double dipper collecting both taxes and tithes. Pharaoh didn't bother with taxes.

It would be convenient to blank out history and history books have been blanked so far, something to do with the evangelical stranglehold on the GOP and in turn a stranglehold on academics. Will the blank stay blank? That is the question. The information is there. But funding mentals will suffer being exposed for what it is if history is proper reported.

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

Let me help with your Bible study, hell.

Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

That means your new body in the next world will be a duplicate of the body left behind. Hint: mummies!!

Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Both body and soul George? I thought only souls went to hell. How do bodies get in the next spirit life?

Jesus is a terrorist, fear monger. What are those who use Jesus to terrorize children with passages like the ones above? Are they sweethearts or just like the 19 of 9-11 frame?

"The one" is Satan and pictured at http://www.hoax-buster.org When "the one" throws both your body and your soul into fiery hell you'll wish you'd been born again, saved, "accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior..." That's definitely not terrorism.

Hewitt said: "Still, improving the world by encouraging people to abandon their religion is progress. Only ideologues aim for a perfect world."

Hewitt's comment shows the difference between atheism and anti-theism. Atheists have no inherent political agenda. Anti-theists are ideologues who seek the world's improvement by elimination of religion.

BGONE ... your insistence that all religion started in Egypt is the source of your error. Gehenna is a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

People don't send other people to hell -- people go to hell out of stubbornness. Evil goes in the garbage dump, and if you cling to evil you'll go there too.

Peace,
RT

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

Click on http://www.biblegateway.com and search on the word "hell."

Is hell real or just a concept, a perception? Why? What purpose does it serve? Who conceptualized hell, invented it? When was it invented?

Ignorance is a terrible thing unless you're on the funded side if fund-a-mental-ism. Then it's just as good as it was for the inventor of hell, Pharaoh.

"Unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior you're going to hell" is as old as Pharaoh, the Lord and savior of the ancient Egyptians.

Gospel Jesus is based on the story of a woman who would be Pharaoh. Pharaoh invented hell because all the people he killed to get what he wanted and what the pope now has made his head hurt.

Thinking about http://www.hoax-buster.org makes evangelical heads hurt. Same bunch.

Take hell away and religion becomes a social club.

PINTO

If all religion were voluntarily abandoned (you could hardly abolish religion) tomorrow, then the level of terrible things happening the the world would drop dramatically. It would not drop to zero.

The lesson of the 20th century is that ideologies do not have to depend on God to be lethal on a wide scale. That was a new and deeply disturbing development.

Still, improving the world by encouraging people to abandon their religion is progress. Only ideologues aim for a perfect world.

Hey Hewitt,

If all the religions are abolished tomorrow you think the level of terrible things happening in the world will drop dramatically? I am sure we will find some other basis like Race, nationality, ethinicity etc to fight and kill. See what happened in Rwanda.

FRIEND said: "Those who benefit or are leaders of the organization will use the followers to accumulate and control the distribution of human and natural resources using their belief system, ethnic, and/or nationalistic reasoning."

Yes, this is true regardless of whether it is a religious organization or a secular one. Organizational power corrupts... regardless of whether you hold office at a church or a municipal government. Organizations are efficient ways of feeding the hungry as well as efficient ways of running a holocaust.

Organizations perpetuate ideologies that promote the continued survival and power of the organization. This is true whether it is the NAACP or the KKK or the Boy Scouts or Dawkins Fan Club.

Peace,
RT

BGONE... way to crush the straw man....

...show me where your definition of hell and "killing people to send them to hell" actually follows from a specific Jewish, Christian or Muslim text and we'll talk. Until then you are just bloviating about how much you hate religion in general without directing your attention to any actual religious concept that actual religious people espouse.

Sheesh.

Peace,
RT

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

Those who benefit or are leaders of the organization will use the followers to accumulate and control the distribution of human and natural resources using their belief system, ethnic, and/or nationalistic reasoning.

Hewitt: You ask, "What is it about religion that can leads people to commit the worst of crimes with such a blind and fierce dedication to the task?"

The short answer is, "they are going to hell anyhow so let's send them on their way now." The long and correct answer involves an understanding of the concept of hell itself. Understanding hell requires that one give up the notion that religions are moral or even had a moral beginning.

Why is there a concept of hell? What prompted a human being to say that some dead folks will not make it to a new life? What type of person has a requirement for some dead to NOT be in the next world? That must be those responsible for the deaths of those whom they deem to be in hell.

The confusion comes with the notion that religion is a promoter of "thou shalt not kill." To the contrary, religion is the promoter of forgiveness, "thou hast killed and thou art forgiven." And, most importantly, the killed thou has killed are NOT in the next world waiting for you.

Not in the next world? Then where are they? But of course, there's a place called hell, a penal colony populated with murder victims while murderers are forgiven. That is where the concept of hell came from, the desire to kill with impunity.

9-11-2001, 19 young men were thinking exactly that as they did the deed. According to "faith" their victims all went to hell while they went to the next world and were greeted as heroes.

Religions are all criminal organizations. They began as such and have not changed.

I have discovered the key to this whole debate.

Replace the word "religions" with the word "organizations" and the whole antitheist critique comes into sharp focus.

Organizations by their very nature are more effective than individual action... and it is precisely this "organizational" feature that makes them violent (armies), irrational (Burning Man festival), intolerant (the any club with membership requirements), allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry (the KKK organization // any tribe), invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry (AMWAY/QUIXTAR organizations), contemptuous of women (Moose Lodge organizations) and coercive toward children (the public education system)."

Antitheists have railed for years against "organized religion" but now that the Church is going Emergent and Emerging, they have to think of a new critique.

Let's face it, there is not necessary connection between (false or not) God-belief and evil, while there are clear links between (religious or not) effective organizations and the evil deeds these organizations can facilitate.

So let's focus the critique on the real causes evil and not the red herring of false God-beliefs.

Peace,
RT

Donna Freitas

If you can acknowledge that region can wreak havoc in our world, then why do you not pause and ask, "why is that"? What is it about religion that can leads people to commit the worst of crimes with such a blind and fierce dedication to the task? Religious atrocities are not mere rogue off-shoots. They are the product of the very nature of religion.

If you dare answer that question, then I think you must abandon the claim that religion helps most believers walk towards what is good in life.

You can not say that any religion makes a "good" person or that any religion helps a person to be good; that there are many "good" people that are not religious! In so far that a religion creates a tribe of social structures that support "good" actions toward non tribal members; then perhaps you could say that religion has a benefit; but that is precisely what religions do not do! All religions claim some exclusive benefit to its members, some exclusive relationship with their God, some attribute of its members which is not shared by others; and this leads naturely to less than "good" behaviors towards others less fortunate! Like nationalism, religion does lead its members to commit atrocities against humanity as the religious dogma superceeds any commonality of just being human!

I was searching for some succinct words to describe my reaction to Ms. Frietas' commentary, when I came across Rafael's response. I'm not an academic, but other than that, Rafael has put words to thoughts much better than I could!

Rafael wrote: "Donna, as a fellow academic, I too am troubled by the lack of support provided for your viewpoint. You seem to fall victim to what passes for scholarship in many fields of academia--the illusion that assertive language can overcome the need for evidence. In addition, you don't address Hitchens' argument, which is not an statement about individuals but about the institution that guides them."

October 2, 2007 10:56 PM

To embrace is fundamentalism. To deny is fundamentalism. Looks like another case of "it's fundamental Watson."

fund-a-mental-ism

fund - put the money in the pot boy
a - singular, one may embrace only one of them
mental - of the mind
ism - cult, religion, faith

Atheists are fundamentalist? Where do I send the money? Yes, no-faith is the zero case of faith. Atheists are not fundamentalists. They are not-funded mentalist that is also a single mind condition.

There is no reality, only perceived reality and there is but one perception per individual mind. Atheists may not escape that reality while the operators of religions take advantage of it. What Mr Hitchens said is his observation of what religion operators do that atheists do not do. The only difference between the two is "fund" which explains.

fun-d

fun - collecting free money
d - letter grade -
common to doctors of divinity and GOP VPs in all subjects except Bible study where no two opinions are the same yet of a single mind. To fund or not to fund a mentalism? That is the question and the difference between theists and atheists.

Could no God be God too? Maybe God has nothing to do with it? Religion is about fund and nothing else.

Mafia - no product, no service, just money.
Religion - no product, no service, just fund-a-mental.

Hitchens says, "Religion is violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive
toward children."

I think you could say the above about humanity with or without religion.

And, to the list above, you can say it is also peaceful, rational, tolerant, worldly, and open-minded.

Humanity is both good and evil, as our culture defines those concepts.
Humanity is religion.
Our civilization is built upon religion, even if our goverment is secular and/or if the majority of our citizens are non-religious.
And if we call ourselves athiest, we carry in our psyche those primordial images and ideas
of our remote anscestors upon which religion is based.

We must look past the literal interpretations of holy books to the mirror they contain on our civilization and minds.

We must die to our animal selves and be born again as gods, like Jesus and the Bhudda.

Larry Van Deusen said: "Religion does not do good things; religious people do good things"
... and guns don't kill people, right?

No one denies that religion, as you say, helps SOME believers walk life's finest of lines, but again what Mr. Hitchens argues is that you are ascribing the better facets of religions to MOST believers when that may not necessarily be true. He may be a reductionist but he's one who says that people can think for themselves and usually develop a pretty accurate moral center without the aid of someone telling them what is good or bad. Who is to say that these "believers" wouldn't know the difference between good and evil, beauty and brutality, etc. in the absence of religion. I have personally seen the good that religion has done in my family, but despite a righteous upbringing, a family I love who are all religious, and an extensive religious education, my conscience has led me in directions that go against the tide of many views that are directly opposed to most religious doctrine. These decisions I've made have been extremely difficult but I also firmly believe now that if there is a god, he is not going to penalize me for thinking for myself and making decisions that I see are better for all people and not just in line with one sects strict doctrine.

It would seem that Ms. Freitas' response misses the point. Religion does not do good things; religious people do good things. Religion may offer a structure within which to do good but whatever good is done comes from within those doing it. That is why a humanist can do good equally as well.
What a humanist will not do is the bad that the structure and dogma of religion may create.
If people need religion to walk the fine line, the presumption must be that man is basically evil. I do not subscribe to that view. That sounds very much like a view encouraged by religion; original sin and all that.

Ms. Frietas this note is for your review and every body else:

Rick,Gerry,Steve Holgate & many others with Reason, sensible questions and comments:

I liked your note Gerry its reason vs superstition and not Islam Vs Christianity or others. For you i advise to see below comments of mine.
Rick, you asked about Hell and Havens and told about population comparison. For you my dear, we are only responsible for our own actions. At the end good deeds and bad deeds were never rewarded equally and never will be(though in appearance you find injustice), logic tells! My believe tells i have the responsibility to seek KNOWLEDGE of world as well to reach the truth, other wise i will left ingorant and end up in hell. (If you are sincere enough you will find the answer of ALL the questions that hinders you and create doubts- ANSWERS ARE ALL OUT THERE!!)
Steve Holgate, dear you talk about lack of scientific proof, I suggest you to also read below comments carefully!!!

Opinions are made upon understanding and certain knowledge, which differ from person to person. For some God is a myth, for some they believe or want to believe according to their religion and for some He is as real as His creation. Below are few examples in the favor of their belief:

For Muslims Big Bang Theory is not something new, it is more than 1400 years old, revealed in their Holy Book along with more than 1000 other scientific facts which are happened to be established recently in couple of centuries. And the answers of so many confusing questions which keep us going astray throughout our lives. AND AS A FACT MUSLIMS KNOW THEY WERE REVEALED BEFORE DISCOVERED AND FURTHER ON TOP OF IT THAT NOT A SINGLE VERSE OF THEIR HOLY BOOK IS IN CONFLICT WITH ANY LOGICAL/SCIENTIFIC APPROACH (INFECT EVERY TIME SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES PROVIDING PROOF IN FAVOR OF THE LAST REVELATIONS), MAKE THEM MORE FOCUSED / PRACTICING /FUNDAMENTALIST OR WHAT EVER OTHERS THINK ABOUT THEM and made it very easy for them to reach to the conclusion...SIMPLY APPLY THE SCIENTIFIC RULE OF PROBABILITY....What if 80% of Qur’an is in conformation with 100% of Science and 20% of it is beyond humans comprehension then logic says it would be also correct, if not now then in future...IF YOU UNDERSTAND PORBABILITY RULE THEN ITS NOT A JOKE !!), very few examples out of All from the Holy book as proof,

I have created all the creatures from earth and all the living beings are made out of water (Chapter 21) (living being which are meant to die/perish)
Don’t you see the earth and sky was together and I separated them, still you don’t believe
(Chapter 21)
I have created sky upon earth for your protection and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)
All the stars, moon and sun are floating in their skies
(Chapter 21)
All the skies are holding with out pillars and there is sign for you
(Chapter 21)

For Muslims God means (The One, Ultimate Creator, Who is Uncreated and above time always present before and after time and beyond our limited level of comprehension)

Below is the TOUCH STONE of God that He revealed in Holy Book, when the question about God was raised:
1- He is One and Only
2-the Eternal, Absolute;
, the eternally Besought of all! on Whom all depend.
3-He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4-And there is none comparable unto Him.
And none is like Him.

PLEASE COMMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY WITHOUT VARIFICATION / RESEARCH OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND AUTHENTIC TRANSLATIONS BY ONLY MUSLIM SCHOLARS TO AVOID ANY TWISTING AND DECEPTIVE TECHNIQUES IN GENERAL PRACTICE!!

Jesus (Isa) A.S. in Islam, and his Second Coming
by Mufti A.H. Elias
I. Jesus (A.S.) In Islam
Muslims do believe that Isa (A.S.) was sent down as a Prophet of Allah (God), but he (Jesus) is not God or Lord, nor the son of God. Muslims do not believe that Isa (A.S.), also known as Jesus by Christians and others, is dead or was ever crucified. We believe that he was raised to heaven and is there, and will descend at the appointed time, end all wars, and bring peace to the world. Like Jesus (A.S.), Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is also a Prophet and Messenger. Muhammed (P.B.U.H.) is the last Prophet, though, and there is none after him. Hence, Islam is the last religion, complete, with the Holy Qur'an as the unchanged and perfect word of God for over 1400 years, AS GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE IT TILL THE LAST DAY FOR ALL OF HUMANKIND, UNLIKE SACRED TEXTS OF OTHER RELIGIONS WHICH HAVE MULITPLE VERSIONS AND ARE "REVISED" PERIODICALLY BY MAN. God, or Allah in Arabic, is Divine and Supreme Being and Creator.
What the Holy Qur'an says about Jesus:
They slew him not, nor did they crucify him but it was made dubious to them.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157)
Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) himself told of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). In the Bible, Jesus (A.S.) says,
IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS. AND I WILL PRAY TO THE FATHER AND HE SHALL GIVE YOU ANOTHER COMFORTER THAT HE MAY ABIDE WITH YOU FOREVER.
(Bible, John 14-15/16)

BUT WHEN THE COMFORTER IS COME, WHOM I WILL SEND UNTO YOU FROM THE FATHER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHICH PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER, HE SHALL TESTIFY OF ME, AND HE ALSO SHALL BEAR WITNESS, BECAUSE YE HAVE BEEN WITH ME FROM THE BEGINNING.
(Bible, John 15-26/27)

I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the spirit of Truth will come, he will guide you into all truth, FOR HE SHALL SPEAK NOT OF HIMSELF, BUT WHATSOEVER HE SHALL HEAR, that he shall speak, AND HE WILL SHOW YOU THINGS TO COME. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and he shall show it unto you.
(Bible, John 16-12/14)
Ulema (learned scholars in Islam) have said that the person who is described by Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) to come after him - in the above verse - does not comply with any other person but Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him).
In this case, the "comforter" he mentions is none other than Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his laws and way of life (Shariah) and Book (Holy Qur'an) are those that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) asks his followers to abide by.
THE "PERSON" WHOM JESUS (A.S.) PROPHECISED WILL COME AFTER HIM, IS CALLED PARGALEETA IN THE BIBLE . THIS WORD WAS DELETED BY INTERPRETERS AND TRANSLATORS AND CHANGED AT TIMES TO "SPIRIT OF TRUTH" AND AT OTHER TIMES, TO "COMFORTER" AND SOMETIMES "HOLY SPIRIT." THE ORIGINAL GREEK AND ITS MEANING IS "ONE WHOM PEOPLE PRAISE EXCEEDINGLY." THE SENSE OF THE WORD, THEN, IS APPLICABLE TO THE WORD MUHAMMAD IN ARABIC, SINCE MUHAMMAD MEANS "THE PRAISED ONE."
Jesus (A.S.) also says in the Bible,
... AND A LITTLE WHILE AND YOU SHALL NOT SEE ME; AND AGAIN A LITTLE WHILE, YOU SHALL SEE ME BECAUSE I GO TO THE FATHER.
(Bible, John 16:16)
... and the Holy Qur'an says,
And surely they slew him not. But Allah (God) raised him unto Himself.
(Holy Qur'an, Surah Nisaa, Verse 157-158)
As such, Muslims believe that Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) was raised to heaven. According to Hadith, he is on the second heaven. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam=Peace be upon him) mentioned, "During the Meraj (Ascension), I met Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) on the second heaven. I found him of medium stature, reddish white. His body was so clean and clear, that it appeared as though he had just performed ghusal (ablution, cleansing of the entire body) and come." In another Hadith, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) mentioned to the Jews that, " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) is not dead, he will most surely return to you before Qiyamat (the Day of Judgement)."
May Allah Guide all people to the Truth. Aameen.

I'm not saying atheists can't fall in love. I'm saying often the most fulfilling things are completely unreasonable. Love takes a bit of recklessness, a willingness to expose oneself to a level of vulnerability that could result in an illogical amount of pain and anguish. A truly reasonable person wouldn't allow for such a result. Interestingly, the unreasonable risk and vulnerability involved with falling in love is strikingly similar to surrendering one's life to God. ...In my experience... and many many others.

"Reasonable people will never fall in love. Undying faith in the value of "intellectual integrity" will keep anyone from experiencing the deepest fulfillment in life. "

I beg your pardon. Are you saying atheists can't fall in love or experience deep fulfillment? How on earth would you know that?

Just because you didn't find these things until you became religious doesn't mean others haven't.

Mr. Mark wrote: "Actually, I would say that religion scares MORAL people into believing they are immoral and are in need of salvation. Those who already act immorally have no need for religion until they're caught doing something terrible, at which point they avail themselves of religion's "get out of jail free" card, get their sins forgiven, and head off on some new career in immorality, this time, religion-based."

Most people are not completely moral. That means most people screw up at one point or another. Are you saying that there is never room for forgiveness and grace?

I will grant you that some people abuse religion... but just because people abuse public office doesn't mean we need to disband the government.

Religion is for everyone, both moral and immoral... it provides something to rally around that inherently has as it's main focus the nature of life and the universe. This is way better than, say, focusing your life and self identity around money or job or other things of this life that go away.

Peace,
RT

Raymond said: "Let us bask in the facile absurdity of this statement, shall we? Very productive indeed."

Ok, I'll bask with you... So will the 73% of Americans who believe in a single God or Supreme Being.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131

What is 'facile-ly' absurd is that Americal anti-theists cen be so panicky about the "inherent violence of God believers" while the actual religionists that surround them pretty much live with atheists in peaceful coexistence.

Let's face it. Americans who believe in God are not the problem. People who fly planes into buildings are the problem. A failure to distinguish these is also 'facile-ly' absurd.

Peace,
RT

Elizabeth writes:

"If we are completely honest, that argument comes down to saying that religion is a means (we can point to and prove) of scaring otherwise immoral people into doing what is largely accepted (the very idea of what is actually moral in say the Bible and what isn't is debatable anyway) as being 'good'"

Actually, I would say that religion scares MORAL people into believing they are immoral and are in need of salvation. Those who already act immorally have no need for religion until they're caught doing something terrible, at which point they avail themselves of religion's "get out of jail free" card, get their sins forgiven, and head off on some new career in immorality, this time, religion-based.

Wait, so you guys really aren't acknowledging the incredible acts of love and sacrifice constantly carried out by churches all over the world? Yes, there have been terrible things done in the name of God, but really... what about all the good? Do some research. You've never seen the overwhelming positive transformations of people who've given their lives to God? It really is a miracle.

Yes friends, faith is unreasonable. God might be beyond our comprehension. That's kinda the point isn't it? To concede that our reasoning is finite and humble ourselves? Faith is not free. It requires that you give up your whole life. That's right... dive headlong over the cliff... surrender all control. It certainly doesn't make sense, but it works. Really. It changed my life. My life is full of love. That's the only way I can describe it.

Reasonable people will never fall in love. Undying faith in the value of "intellectual integrity" will keep anyone from experiencing the deepest fulfillment in life.

Of course this is only my experience. You can simply brush me off as another lunatic, but who's really being narrow minded and judgmental? I've been on the other side of the argument, but I have to admit it when I'm wrong.

There are decent churches out there. Unfortunately all churches are full of just regular human beings.

Donna, as a fellow academic, I too am troubled by the lack of support provided for your viewpoint. You seem to fall victim to what passes for scholarship in many fields of academia--the illusion that assertive language can overcome the need for evidence. In addition, you don't address Hitchens' argument, which is not an statement about individuals but about the institution that guides them.

Former Christian writes, "I derive personal comfort when listening to Steely Dan"

Now there's a faith I can get behind without any reservations!

"To deny this altogether is its own sort of fundamentalism"

Oh, good grief, are you really that ignorant?

When I was young, yes there were a few in the church ( Catholic ) I considered genuinely worthy of the respect their office requires. However with the passing of time Religion whether it be Catholicism/Protestantism or whatever acts merely as a vehicle for its leaders to profit from the masses. Moreover their hysterical approach to progressive health care initiatives ( contraception and the like ) is beyond ignorant - it is dangerous to society.
So forgive me but you and all the other reichwing fundies are a huge problem and are fundamentally responsible for the dumbing down of America.
God help us.

RTS said: "Trent... Christians agree with you. They believe that God is real, and that they are adhering to reality."

Let us bask in the facile absurdity of this statement, shall we? Very productive indeed.

The word "Islamofascists" is of religious nature. It is one thing to go after Bin Laden and it is quite different to go after entire Islamic community. The Christians use provocative language and blame the entire religion! Why then Christians be immune from the same broad brush criticism?

Trent said: "I contend that any good that comes from believing fantasies can be achieved while believing in reality"

Trent... Christians agree with you. They believe that God is real, and that they are adhering to reality.

Miss/Mrs Freitas:

I contend that any good that comes from believing fantasies can be achieved while believing in reality. More importantly, I don't think anything good actually comes from religion, no matter how watered down, then comes from Fascism or belief in magic.

Take just one consequence of Christianity that affects all of us, no matter how stealthily: ubiquitous, deeply-rooted prudery. What kind of worldview takes something joyous and precious in our lives and turns it into something shameful and depraved? Prudery is one of the greatest perversions of morality in humanity's history. We can see this faith-inspired tragedy every day.

Sincerely,
Trent

I find this answer also misses a vital point that atheists make in disputing the very moral 'value' of religions. The claims of assistance in helping believers walk the fine lines between 'good and evil, beauty and brutality' should scare anyone who really thinks about it, or ring untrue or even ironic.

If we are completely honest, that argument comes down to saying that religion is a means (we can point to and prove) of scaring otherwise immoral people into doing what is largely accepted (the very idea of what is actually moral in say the Bible and what isn't is debatable anyway) as being 'good'.

And the utter brutality that people find inspiration or excuse for through their religion is equally well documented. I've heard people argue that you can abuse an system to make excuses for yourself, but there is no system like religion that people are allowed to let reason fall by the wayside as they do as they please. Further, I think the distraction of focusing on what a 'god' wants you to do/how much it loves you etc, keeps people from making the most blessed connection of all,..with other People. Any aid that comes from a church or religous orginization, that can be proven, comes from other human beings.

Last of all, the old accusation of 'fundamentalism of its own kind' in regard to atheism, as if that name tagging will drop the higher standards held to it into the lower standards of theism is a weak argument at best. Or perhaps a an unintended compliment depending on how the meaning of the word is to be taken.

To believe in "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles" is the general definition of the word 'fundamentalism'. In regards to religion it means you don't question the beliefs taught to you as doctrine. However if you apply it to the 'core' beliefs of an atheist, which are to value intellectual integrity, and to demand proof of all claims made in regards to the nature of the world/existance, it means something etirely different.

This is a refutation? All you're doing is stating assumptions with nothing to support them.

I know good things and good people associated with religion - which is seems is what you are saying, Donna. Of course, religion isn't necessary for good things to happen or for good poeple to be happy in life.

It also seems like you decided not to respond to Hitchens question - presumably because you can't.

I wish you would have said that, instead of just defending religion. It seems disengenuous.

Dear Donna,

You state; "I worry when a person simply refuses to concede that religions—regardless of all their flaws—help most believers walk life’s finest of lines—between good and evil, between beauty and brutality, between utter joy and meaning and the deepest pain and despair. To deny this altogether is its own sort of fundamentalism."

If you were to make an argument -- that religion is the vehicle that helps most believers distinguish between good and evil, beauty and brutality -- then there might be something to talk about. But what you do is to "worry" or be surprised that people refuse to accept that conclusion. Well, I don't.

It would have been helpful if you provided examples of how religion helps people distinguish between good and evil.

As a former Christian, the most popular answer to the question about how one leads a good life is to go to the bible and follow its guidelines.

Well, after seriously reading and studying the bible with some other adults for a couple of years, I've concluded the bible is the last place to go to learn about good and high morals. Remember, the people from the North and the South were reading the same bible and concluding just the opposite when it came to God's support for slavery.

Many verses of the bible were used to justify apartheid in South Africa for years -- long after the US decided it wasn't moral. And of course, familiarity with the bible certainly brings revulsion when you read the story of Lott or even the many stories about Moses.

Okay, so if not the bible where do we go to help us through life's challenges?

How about prayer? Like the bible, the only thing that I can see that prayer does is bring comfort to the person doing the praying. Since I derive personal comfort when listening to Steely Dan or the Dave Matthews band, what's the difference between praying and doing anything that brings you satisfaction? Is there something inherent about these bands that brings comfort to people? Is there any difference from someone deriving comfort and pleasure from praying and deriving the same from listening to Katy Lied?

So tell me, what about religion helps people distinguish between good and evil? Helps them decide on beauty over brutality? I've seen no evidence of it and yet you seem to state it as a fact without even a hint of evidence to back it up.